Teens and Drunk Driving · Teens and Drunk Driving Teen Sexuality Teen Smoking Teen Suicide Teen Violence Look for these and other books in the Lucent ... ‘I love you, Saulo

Teens andDrunkDriving

Teens&DrnkDrvng FRONT 3/1/04 1:08 PM Page 1

Teen AlcoholismTeen DepressionTeen Dropouts

Teen Drug AbuseTeen Eating Disorders

Teen ParentingTeen PregnancyTeen Prostitution

Teens and DivorceTeens and Drunk Driving

Teen SexualityTeen SmokingTeen Suicide

Teen Violence

Look for these and other books in the LucentTeen Issues and Overview series:


Teens andDrunk Driving

by Nathan Aaseng

TeEN ISSuES


No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means, electrical,mechanical, or otherwise, including, but not limited to, photocopy, recording, or any informa-tion storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Copyright © 2000 by Lucent Books, Inc.P.O. Box 289011, San Diego, CA 92198-9011

Printed in the U.S.A.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Aaseng, Nathan.Teens and drunk driving / by Nathan Aaseng.

p. cm. — (Lucent overview series. Teen issues)Includes bibliographical references and index.Summary: Examines teens and drunk driving, discussing how

drinking affects driving ability, who drinks and drives and why, the law and drunk driving, and preventing drunk driving tragedies.

ISBN 1-56006-518-4 (lib. bdg. : alk. paper)1. Drinking and traffic accidents—United States—Juvenile

literature. 2. Drunk driving—United States—Juvenile literature3. Teenagers—Alcohol use—United States—Juvenile literature[1. Drinking and traffic accidents. 2. Drunk driving.] I. Title.II. Series. HE5620.D72A27 2000363.12'514'08350973—dc21 99-16888

CIP


Contents

INTRODUCTION 6

CHAPTER ONE 9Unguided Missiles on the Road

CHAPTER TWO 21How Drinking Affects Driving Ability

CHAPTER THREE 35Who Drinks and Drives and Why

CHAPTER FOUR 49The Law and Drunk Driving

CHAPTER FIVE 63Preventing Drunk Driving Tragedies

NOTES 79ORGANIZATIONS TO CONTACT 83SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING 87WORKS CONSULTED 89INDEX 91PICTURE CREDITS 95ABOUT THE AUTHOR 96


6

NO ONE AT Barron High School seemed to know ex-actly when the four ducked out of class on the morning ofFebruary 27, 1996. High school juniors Wonzel Crowe, Je-remy Whitman, and Jasper Stamper, and senior Saulo Ro-driguez were not problem students. In fact, they were someof the highest young achievers in this rural community ofabout three thousand people in northwestern Wisconsin.Rodriguez reigned as the conference wrestling championat 119 pounds and had recently placed fifth in the statemeet. Stamper looked forward to improving on his schoolrecord 6-foot, 5-inch high jump during the spring trackseason. Crowe had earned a reputation for working hardand was being primed to take over the beef cattle farm thathad been in the family for five generations.

But for some reason, the four were in a reckless partymood on that frosty winter morning. On their way toschool, Crowe and Stamper had stopped by the home of17-year-old Joshua McEwen. There they purchased a bot-tle of whiskey and a bottle of brandy for $20. Sometime af-ter reporting for school, Crowe, Stamper, Whitman, andRodriguez took off in Crowe’s 1989 Ford Ranger.

An icy roadAt about 10:45 that morning, John Elam drove his com-

munity sanitation truck out on the highway on his dailyrounds. About a mile northeast of Barron, he came uponCrowe’s vehicle, which was approaching at a high rate ofspeed from the east. The Ford Ranger swerved from its

Introduction


7

lane and then spun out of control. It slid several hundredyards on the ice-covered road before slamming broadsideinto the garbage truck. The impact was so devastating thatit knocked the heavy truck on its side. Elam suffered onlyminor injuries. But amid the shattered glass and twistedwreckage of the pickup, all four high school boys lay deadof massive injuries.

Finding glass from a liquor bottle in Stamper’s lap, in-vestigators immediately suspected that drinking was thecause of the accident. State laboratory blood tests con-firmed that all four had been drinking. Crowe, who wasdriving, had a blood alcohol content of nearly twice thelevel at which a driver is legally considered intoxicated.

Why?News of the tragedy stunned the Barron community.

More than a thousand people crammed the high schoolgym to pay their last respects to the victims. When theshock began to wear off, they began to ask how such athing could have happened to these fine young men. Howcould this senseless slaughter have been avoided? Whowas to blame?

Legal authorities zeroed in on Joshua McEwen, who hadsupplied the four with liquor. McEwen eventually pleaded

The Barron tragedywas not an isolatedcase. Here a Vermontstate trooper examinesa car in which fourteens from Newportdied while drinking anddriving.


8

guilty to misdemeanor charges of contributing to the delin-quency of a minor. The court sentenced him to six monthsin jail, three years’ probation, and $2,000 in restitution. “Ididn’t mean to bring anyone harm by what I did,” 1 he toldthe court.

The remorse was all too familiar to the judge, whonoted, “Most people end up here because they didn’t thinkabout the consequences of their actions.” 2 The same wordsapplied to the four young men, who were ultimately re-sponsible for their own behavior. Crowe’s sister, AlieshaHarelstad, tried to get this message across to local highschool students. “My brother thought he was invincible.But the fact is that there are a lot of things that can happen,especially if you don’t make responsible choices.” 3

Unbearable consequencesA lot of things can happen to someone who chooses to

drink and drive, and almost all of them are bad: death, seri-ous injury, jail, heavy fines, suspension of driving privi-leges, the weight of a guilty conscience, or nightmares thatwill not go away. Worst of all, by ignoring the risks ofdrinking and driving, Crowe, Whitman, Stamper, and Ro-driguez brought unspeakable anguish to those who lovedthem. Rodriguez’s father, Nicolas, pleaded with youngpeople to wake up to the dangers of drinking and driving.“Spare your friends, teachers, and family the pain of a fatalmistake,” he said. “More specifically, your parents, whomight, like myself . . . have to carry the heavy burden ofnot being able to say to my son, ‘I love you, Saulo.’” 4

Unfortunately, despite many such warnings and strict lawsthat prohibit the consumption of liquor by teenagers, teenscontinue to drink and drive. Every year thousands of parentsand siblings have to go through the anguish that grippedNicolas Rodriguez and Aliesha Harelstad. Thousands morewill have their lives shattered when a loved one is an inno-cent victim of someone else who drinks and drives.


9

A PERSON WHO is shown a brand new gun will im-mediately recognize it as a weapon—a dangerous piece ofequipment with the power to maim or kill. If that same per-son is shown a shiny new automobile, the reaction will bevastly different. He or she may feel admiration, excite-ment, desire, or envy. But it is a rare person who will im-mediately recognize the car as a destructive weapon. Yet,as Sergeant David Williams of the Monroe, North Car-olina, police force puts it, “A person can die whether he atea bullet from a nine-millimeter or from a 3,000-pound ve-hicle.” 5 In fact, far more teenagers are killed by cars thanby bullets.

In the United States, at any given moment there are mil-lions of three-thousand-pound vehicles weaving throughcrowded city streets at thirty-five miles per hour or rocket-ing through the countryside at twice that speed. Society en-trusts the lives and property of its citizens to the drivers ofthese vehicles. A driver is willing to merge into a stream oftraffic only because he or she assumes that the other dri-vers are alert and in command of their vehicles.

When drivers are not in total control of their senses,their automobiles turn into occupied, unguided missilesthat could plow into a tree, a building, an approaching car,or an innocent bystander at any time. These missiles are farmore dangerous than guns, for, as Ricardo Martinez, headof the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

1Unguided Missiles

on the Road


10

(NHTSA), points out, they can “kill a family of four inone-tenth of a second, faster than a machine gun.” 6

It is no secret that drinking alcohol robs people of con-trol of their senses. Yet, according to Dr. Dwight Heath, ananthropologist at Brown University, “There was a timewhen drunk driving was treated pretty much as a joke, likesome kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.” 7

An ancient and widespread customPart of the reason why people shrugged off drinking and

driving for many years was because the use of alcoholicbeverages is a firmly established tradition that dates backto prehistoric times. Descriptions of alcoholic beverageshave been found in documents in India dating back fourthousand years ago. In the ancient societies of both theGreeks and the Romans, alcohol became such an acceptedpart of social activity that their myths and legends includestories about gods of wine. Virtually all societies in theworld have made use of some form of alcoholic beverage,although in the case of many Native American and Arabpeoples, these products were unknown until brought in byother cultures.

In every society, alcohol has brought with it seriousproblems—ranging from addiction to violent, destructive,and irresponsible behavior, to disease and early death. Oc-casionally, groups have arisen attempting to eliminate ordiscourage the use of alcoholic beverages. Nevertheless,alcohol has held firm in its popularity throughout recordedhistory. In past centuries, alcoholic beverages were socommonly used in certain areas, especially in urban areaswhere the quality of the water was questionable, that theycame to be identified with the particular culture. For Ger-mans, the liquid refreshment of choice was beer; for theFrench, meals were not complete unless served with wine.Even in the unspoiled wilderness of North America, set-tlers generally considered alcoholic drinks to be safer andhealthier than water.

In most people’s minds, the potential dangers of alcoholdid not appear to be serious enough to require any govern-


11

ment regulation, not even for the young. As late as 1886,children in England could buy any alcoholic beverage onthe market, although it was assumed they were buyingthem for their parents.

Drinking and motorized transportationUntil the invention of motorized transportation, drinking

travelers posed no particular danger to the public. Whenthe only way for the average person to travel was by walk-ing, rowing a boat, or riding a horse, an intoxicated per-son’s lack of judgment and coordination could get him orher in trouble but was not likely to hurt someone else. Evena runaway, riderless horse usually had the sense to avoidcollisions. Except in cases of freak accidents, the only peo-

Drunk driving wasonce treated as a joke,as this stagedphotograph from the1940s demonstrates.

photo #BE050106in high-res photos folder


12

ple vulnerable to harm from drunk drivers were those whochose to ride in ships or carriages driven by hired handswho had been drinking.

As motorized transportation became popular, however,people began to realize the potential for destruction thatlay at the hands of a drunken operator. As early as 1843,the New York Central Railroad formally banned the drink-ing of alcoholic beverages by any employee on duty.

The invention of the automobile in the late nineteenthcentury marked the first time that great numbers of indi-viduals took command of powerful, heavy, fast-moving ve-hicles. Along with ready access to this speed and powercame the danger of terrible collisions. In the final years ofthe nineteenth century, the United States recorded its firstautomobile fatality. As the trickle of automobiles on theroads turned into a flood of traffic, death tolls soared intothe thousands.

As more and more people began to rely on their own au-tomobiles for transportation, the drinking of alcoholic bev-erages posed a danger that society had never beforeexperienced. It produced a large number of unsafe opera-tors of dangerous vehicles. Henry Ford, who was one ofthe individuals most responsible for bringing the automo-bile into the hands of the average American, found the pos-sibilities so frightening that he predicted alcohol woulddisappear from society. In his view, “booze had to go whenmodern industry and the motor car came in.” 8

Although few others were so extreme in their views,most people recognized that drunken automobile operatorspresented a serious danger to the public. The state of NewYork added the offense of drunk driving to its traffic regu-lations in 1910. California was among many states that en-acted laws prior to World War I that provided that thosewho drove drunk could be put in jail or their driving privi-leges suspended.

The problem growsEnforcement of drunk driving laws in the first half of the

twentieth century, however, was spotty. There were no tests


13

available to determine how much alcohol was in a person’ssystem. Therefore, arrest and conviction for a drunk dri-ving offense depended on a police officer’s guess of howintoxicated the driver was. Unless a person displayed themost obvious signs of drunkenness, such as slurred speech,incoherent mumbling, and poor balance, drunk driving wasdifficult to prove. Furthermore, drinking and driving wascommonly viewed as one of those wild and crazy thingsthat ordinary, fun-loving people occasionally do from timeto time. The lack of concern over teens’ drinking and dri-ving is evidenced by the almost complete absence of re-porting on the subject.

In the 1950s, scientists began to develop accurate chem-ical tests that could determine the amount of alcohol in thebloodstream. This made arrests and convictions for drivingwhile intoxicated easier to obtain. But it did not seem tostem the tide of drunk driving. Less than half a century af-ter it was first declared illegal, driving while intoxicatedhad become the nation’s most commonly prosecuted of-fense in court.

During the 1960s, the U.S. Department of Transporta-tion came out with a stunning report, called “Alcohol andHighway Safety,” that opened the nation’s eyes to the seri-ousness of the drunk driving problem. This report esti-mated that twenty-five thousand people were being killedon U.S. streets and highways each year by drunk drivers.Although many experts questioned the accuracy of this fig-ure, the mind-boggling number of reported deaths led tothe launching of federal programs aimed at reducing drink-ing and driving.

Lowering the drinking ageHowever, even though public awareness of drunk dri-

ving increased in the 1970s, the problem grew even worsebecause of changes in state drinking laws that arose in re-sponse to the Vietnam War. The war was unpopular, partic-ularly with young people. They protested against the factthat the government could send teenagers to fight and diein the war but yet those teens had no voice in choosing the


14

people who made such decisions. If they were old enoughto take on the burden of fighting and dying in the nation’swars, teens argued, they should be treated as adults and notchildren. They particularly sought the right to vote. Duringthe 1970s, society agreed with them. All states loweredtheir voting age requirement to eighteen.

Once the voting right was extended to the young, peoplequestioned why any other adult privileges should be de-nied to eighteen-year-olds. It appeared simpler and morereasonable to establish eighteen as the legal starting pointof adulthood. Taking this point of view, many states in the1970s also lowered their legal drinking age to eighteen.

A victim of a drunkdriver is pulled fromthe wreckage of his carin the 1950s. As peoplebegan to rely more ontheir own cars, the ideaof drinking and drivingbecame morefrightening.

photo # BE043883in high-res photos folder


15

Unfortunately, the effects of this last change led to aslaughter of young people on the highways. Teenagers be-gan drinking and driving in record numbers. Injuries anddeaths among young drivers soared. In 1964, governmentanalysts had estimated 7,797 deaths of teenagers as a resultof drunk driving. By 1975, the annual toll had jumped tonearly 9,000.

Attacking the problemShocked by the mounting death toll, some individuals

began to take action. In 1979, after a local teenager diedfrom injuries caused by a drunk driver, Doris Aiken ofSchenectady, New York, organized a group called RemoveIntoxicated Drivers (RID). A year later, thirteen-year-oldCari Lightner of Fair Oaks, California, was walking with afriend when she was killed by a drunk driver. Candy Light-ner’s grief turned to rage when she learned that the manwho killed her daughter had been arrested only two daysearlier and charged with his third drunk driving offense.Determined to keep such irresponsible drivers off the road,she formed Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). InMarch 1983, NBC carried her story to the nation by broad-casting a movie about her tragic experience. Both RID andMADD worked hard to call attention to the misery causedby drunk drivers and fought for laws protecting the publicfrom them.

At the same time, lawmakers recognized the destructionthat resulted from the lowered drinking age. From 1976 to1980, eleven states raised their drinking age back to nine-teen, twenty, or twenty-one. This left the nation with ajumble of drinking laws that varied from state to state. Thesituation created a particularly dangerous drunk drivinghazard around state borders. Teens from a state with a highdrinking age flocked across the border to a state wherethey could legally drink. They almost always had to drivehome after a night of partying and often were in no condi-tion to be on the highways. More tragedy resulted.

In 1984, the federal government took dramatic action tosolve the problem. Congress passed legislation requiring


16

states to raise their legal drinking age to twenty-one in or-der to be eligible for federal highway construction funds.Many people grumbled that the federal government had noright to dictate what states had to do. But since no statecould afford to pass up millions of dollars in federal con-struction money, all thirty-seven states with drinking agesbelow twenty-one raised their legal drinking standards totwenty-one by the end of the 1980s.

Teen drunk driving todayThe efforts of groups such as MADD and RID, govern-

ment agencies, and other organizations have paid off ingreater awareness today of the hazards of drunk driving.This, combined with the laws raising the minimum legaldrinking age to twenty-one, has led to a decline in the num-bers of people who drink and drive. Arrests for driving underthe influence had been climbing in the early 1980s, to a peakof 1.9 million in 1983. Since then, they have fallen steadily,to fewer than 1.5 million in 1996. The decline is all the more

Buttons issued byMADD strongly advisedrivers to avoid mixingalcohol andautomobiles.

photo #KV005308in high-res photos folder


17

remarkable because the number of drivers on the roads andthe amount of miles they drive have increased.

Statistics show that teens have been most responsible forthe drop in drunk driving arrests. In the ’90s, teenagers dra-matically turned their backs on drinking as a regular activ-ity. In 1990 the National Household Survey on Drug Abusereported that 32.5 percent of teens ages twelve to seventeenreported using alcohol at least once in the past month.When the survey was repeated in 1996, the numberdropped to 18.8 percent. As a result of less drinking, fewerteens have been caught driving while under the influence.According to statistics from the NHTSA, in 1980, driversbetween the ages of sixteen and twenty made up about 10percent of the U.S. licensed driving population, yet they ac-counted for 15 percent of arrests for driving under the influ-ence (DUI). In other words, teens were drinking anddriving far more often than the average driver. In 1996, teendrivers made up 7 percent of the nation’s licensed driversand were responsible for only 8 percent of the DUI arrests.This showed that teens were only slightly more likely thanother age groups to engage in drinking and driving.

A modern success storyEfforts by individuals and government agencies to re-

duce drinking and driving have saved thousands of livesand billions of dollars in property damages over the pastdecade. In 1986, alcohol was cited as a factor in roughlytwenty-four thousand traffic fatalities, more than half of allmotor vehicle deaths. Ten years later, use of alcohol wasinvolved in nearly 7,000 fewer deaths, less than 41 percentof the 1996 traffic death toll.

The trend of reduced teen drinking and driving has beenespecially noticeable in the 1990s. Before states raised thelegal drinking age in the ’80s, drinking and driving was thenumber one cause of death among teens. Since the mid-1980s, motor vehicle accidents in which alcohol is not in-volved have taken over as the number one killer of teens.Alcohol-related traffic deaths for young people were cut inhalf from 22 deaths per 100,000 in the early 1980s to 11


18

per 100,000 in the mid-1990s. Reduction in the accidentsinvolving drivers who were seriously drunk accounted forall of the decline.

In raw numbers, 8,508 young people lost their lives intraffic accidents in 1982. Twelve years later, the number ofteens killed in motor vehicle accidents during the year de-clined to 6,226 teenagers, a savings of well over 2,000lives. As the NHTSA notes, “Few social programs aimedat reducing mortality can measure success with the magni-tude of these numbers.” 9

Still a national tragedyAs encouraging as the downward trend of teen drunk

driving may be, the fight is far from over. Despite a con-stant barrage of publicity against drinking and driving, andthe fact that drinking alcoholic beverages is illegal for allteens, young people continue to drink and drive more thanmost other age groups of drivers. This is especially true ofolder teens. In a recent survey, more than half the first-yearstudents at Boston area colleges admitted that, during thepast year, they had driven after drinking alcohol.

Although fewer teenagers drink and drive than did adecade ago, those who do continue to cause more tragedyand destruction than drunk drivers in other age groups. Thenumber of teens killed in alcohol-related motor vehicle ac-cidents continues to hover about 10 percent above the na-tional average for alcohol-related deaths. According to theNHTSA, alcohol continues to be a factor in over 35 per-cent of all teen motor vehicle fatalities.

“We think of all the things Dana won’t see”

Statistically speaking, a drop from eight thousand tosix thousand may be cause for celebration. But those sixthousand deaths, every one of them needless and avoid-able, still leave a broad trail of grief in their wakes. Eachspins a tale of misery and human suffering like that expe-rienced by the family of Dana Ogletree of Brooks, Geor-gia. On the morning of December 20, 1995, Shandra


19

Ogletree said goodbye to her husband as he headed off towork, just as she had most mornings of their nineteen-year marriage. She had no idea that she would never seehim alive again.

Ogletree was driven to work that day by his coworkerDavid Harris. On the way to their job, Harris took a detourto deliver his fiancée’s three young children to the home oftheir father. Before they reached their first stop, a seventeen-year-old driver who was drunk on beer rammed their carbroadside at a high speed. Ogletree was rushed to the hos-pital where emergency surgery was performed, but it wasnot enough to save him; he died the following morning.Harris and the three children were also killed.

In an instant, a foolish decision by a teenager shatteredthe lives of dozens of people. Although sentenced to tenyears in prison, the driver got off much easier than any ofhis victims. Dana Ogletree’s five children were left withouta father and will be haunted by that senseless loss for therest of their lives. Even the happiest occasions of their liveswill be tinged in sorrow because, as Shandra said, “Wethink of all the things Dana won’t see.” 10

Young People, Drinking, and Driving▼

▼▼

▼

Eight young people a day die in alcohol-related crashes. (CSAP, 1996)

Younger people (ages 16–20) are most likely of any age group to usevarious strategies, when hosting a social occasion where alcohol is served, to try to prevent their guests from drinking and driving. (NHTSA, 1996)

7,738 intoxicated drivers (.10 BAC or greater) between the ages of 16 and 20 were fatally injured in 1995. (NHTSA, 1996)

Between 1985 and 1995, the proportion of drivers 16 to 20 years of age who were involved in fatal crashes, and were intoxicated, dropped47 percent—23.9 percent in 1985 to 12.7 percent in 1994—the largestdecrease of any age group during this time period. (NHTSA, 1996)

Sou

rce:

MA

DD

.


20

Keeping the pressure onThe encouraging reduction in drunk driver fatalities over

the past decade provides no comfort to people such as theOgletrees. Nor is there any guarantee that the progress of

the last decade will continue. Americanstend to focus on issues for a short amount oftime before the subject becomes stale andthe media look for fresher, more sensationalstories. Furthermore, despite the progressmade, people still tend to underestimate theseriousness of drunk driving. Most peopleare far more worried about being killed intheir homes by an intruder than they areabout being run down by a drunk driver, de-spite statistics that show the danger fromdrunk drivers is far greater. The demand forprotection from violent crime and house-hold intruders puts pressure on police forcesto pour more of their limited funds into pre-

venting burglaries. According to law-enforcement experts,this means that there is less money to spend on traffic lawenforcement.

Donna Shalala, secretary for Health and Human Ser-vices, argues that the nation cannot afford to become com-placent about the tragic effects of drinking and driving:“This is no time to underfund these programs. This is thetime to step forward and continue the momentum thatwe’ve created.” 11

Donna Shalala urgesvigilance against drunkdriving.

photo bleeds left


21

THE ALCOHOL PRESENT in beer, wine, whiskey,and other liquors is known as ethyl alcohol, or ethanol.Ethanol is a thin, colorless liquid with a strong aroma thathas a dramatic effect on the nervous system. It is formednaturally when tiny living organisms known as yeast reactwith sugars at warm temperatures.

Entering the bloodstreamWhen a person drinks alcoholic beverages, the ethanol

quickly enters the bloodstream without being chemicallychanged in any way. About 20 percent of it passes directlyinto the bloodstream from the stomach; the rest is ab-sorbed through the small intestines. The speed with whichit is absorbed depends on a number of factors. For exam-ple, the absorption rate is slower when food is present inthe stomach. Also, alcohol mixed with other liquids suchas water or soda is absorbed more slowly than highly con-centrated alcohol.

Once ethanol enters the bloodstream, there is no way toremove it quickly. Popular techniques for “sobering up” aperson, such as strong coffee or a cold shower, have ab-solutely no effect. Only the steady action of the liver,which can convert ethanol into carbohydrates, will cleansethe blood. Generally, an average-sized person is able to re-move alcohol from the bloodstream at the rate of about anounce per hour.

2How Drinking Affects

Driving Ability


22

Measuring drunkennessThe presence of a very small amount of ethanol in the

bloodstream has a dramatic impact on the nervous system.One of the reasons for this, according to Vivian Begali inHead Injury in Children and Adolescents, is that the brainis “completely dependent upon blood for its oxygen” and“at any given time, the brain contains approximately 20 percent of the body’s total blood supply.” 12 A teaspoonful ofalcohol in the entire blood supply can completely change aperson’s personality and ability to function. When alcoholin the bloodstream reaches a level of only one-half of 1percent, the result is almost always fatal. Therefore, whenmeasuring the amount of alcohol in a person’s system, ana-lysts are working with extremely small numbers.

The standard measurement of the presence of alcohol ina person’s system is the blood alcohol content (BAC). ABAC of .10 means that alcohol makes up one-tenth of 1percent of the total volume of the blood.

The terms drunk and intoxicated are not scientific, and

Blood Alcohol Concentration Within One Hour

Not legally under the influence. Im-pairment possible.

0 to .04

State laws regarding BAC legal limits vary. Mental and physical

impairment noticeable.

.05 to .09

.10 and abovePresumed intoxicated

in all 50 states.

Figures are rounded to nearest .01. BACs shown are approximate, since they can be affected by factors other than weight.

100

120

140

160

180

200

number of drinks

wei

ght

in p

ound

s

1 2 3 4 5

.04

.03

.02

.02

.02

.01

.09

.08

.06

.05

.05

.04

.15

.12

.10

.09

.08

.07

.20

.16

.14

.12

.10

.09

.25

.21

.18

.15

.13

.12

Sou

rce:

Nat

iona

l Cle

arin

ghou

se f

or A

lcoh

ol a

nd D

rug

Info

rmat

ion.


23

there is no precise definition that fits all cases. Alcohol af-fects different people in different ways. Studies haveshown that even police officers, who have considerabletraining and experience in dealing with heavy drinkers,cannot always tell when a person is under the influence ofalcohol.

Because drunkenness is difficult to determine just by aperson’s appearance and behavior, authorities have cometo rely heavily on the BAC as the standard for determiningwhether or not a person is intoxicated. Most states considera BAC of .10 as the dividing line between being sober andbeing drunk. Canada and several states enforce .08 as thelegal limit.

What does it take for a person to get drunk?For an average person, one ounce of alcohol will pro-

duce a BAC of .02. Two cans of beer, a seven-ounce glassof wine, and a two-ounce shot of whiskey all containabout an ounce of alcohol. That means that a personwould require ten beers, five glasses of wine, or fivedrinks of liquor to reach .10, the legal level of intoxicationin most states.

While that sounds like a large amount of alcohol in ashort amount of time, there are several factors involvedthat create problems for many drinkers. First, the slow rateat which the body removes alcohol from the bloodstreamputs those who drink during the course of a long evening atrisk. A person who consumes four drinks in the first hourto stay under the legal limit and then cuts back to twodrinks an hour for the next three hours may feel he or sheis being responsible. But in reality, the drinker has addedsix ounces of alcohol to the four already in his or her sys-tem, while the body has been able to remove only three.That makes a total of seven ounces, which would producea BAC of roughly .14, well over the legal limit.

Furthermore, a person’s physical makeup greatly affectsBAC. A smaller person circulates less blood than a largerperson does, so an ounce of alcohol will make up a greaterproportion of his or her total blood. This means that a


24

small person may reach a BAC of .10 on three or fourdrinks rather than five. Also, those with a higher percent-age of body fat will reach a high BAC more quickly thanthose whose bodies are more lean and muscular.

Since the presence of food in the stomach reduces therate at which the body absorbs alcohol, those who eatwhile drinking will not reach high BAC levels as quicklyas those who drink on an empty stomach. Body chemistryand state of mind can also affect the rate at which a per-son’s BAC climbs.

Because the body absorbs strong concentrations of alco-hol more quickly than diluted alcohol, a person who drinksstraight whiskey or vodka will reach a high BAC morequickly than one who drinks the same amount of alcohol

Body chemistry andstate of mind areamong the factors thatinfluence the effects ofeven one glass ofliquor.

photo #25317in hi-res photos folder


25

from beer, which is mostly water, or mixed drinks. Com-bined with the fact that beer has an alcohol content onlyabout one-tenth that of strong liquor, this has led manypeople to consider beer a fairly “safe” alcoholic beverage.However, people tend to drink beer in far greater amountsthan they do other alcoholic beverages. The fact is that aperson who drinks a great deal of beer can get just as drunkas a person who drinks strong liquor.

How alcohol affects the brainEven though many people think of alcohol as a stimu-

lant because it helps them reach a state of excitement orcontentment known as a “high,” it is actually the opposite.Alcohol is a depressant. It slows down or reduces the effi-ciency of many of the activities of the nervous system.

Alcohol has a strong effect on the part of the brain thatgoverns wakefulness. Many people find that even a singleglass of wine makes them drowsy. People with a very highBAC run a good risk of passing out altogether.

Alertness is a related function of the brain that de-scribes a general state of readiness to receive and processinformation. By slowing down the response rate of thenervous system, alcohol leaves people less aware of theirsurroundings, less able to focus attention beyond a brief

The Amount of Alcohol in One Drink

Each of the three types of alcohol listed above has about the same amount of ethyl alcohol—.6 ounces.

12 ounces of beer (5% alcohol)

5 ounces of wine (12% alcohol)

1.5 ounces of liquor (40% alcohol)

Sou

rce:

Nat

iona

l Cle

arin

ghou

se f

or A

lcoh

ol a

nd D

rug

Info

rmat

ion.


26

period of time, and less efficient in gathering informationfrom the senses.

Alcohol and judgmentOne of the most important functions of the human brain

is judgment. The brain collects data from all the senses,compares them with past experiences, and comes up withan appropriate reaction to the countless situations that comeup during a day. Many of these situations are trivial, and thebrain can handle them without the person’s even being con-scious of making a decision. For example, when someoneclimbs a flight of stairs, the brain measures the height of thesteps and signals the muscles to raise the legs to the neededlevel to reach the next step. The required reaction is so rou-tine that the climber does not even think about raising thelegs. Situations that are less routine involve more consciousthought. A person driving in an unfamiliar city, for exam-ple, must make conscious decisions of where to turn.

Every decision the brain makes, whether conscious orunconscious, occurs because of electrical and chemical im-pulses sent through the nerve network. Alcohol slowsdown and may even block these impulses. This blockagemay also reduce or blot out a person’s memory, robbinghim or her of the storehouse of experience upon which de-cisions are based. By causing problems with the nervoussystem, alcohol makes it difficult for people to process theinformation they receive from their senses and make ap-propriate responses. Even when they respond instinctivelyto situations, their reaction time is considerably slowerthan it would have been without the presence of alcohol.

Alcohol and restraintA surprisingly large amount of brain activity is con-

cerned not with taking action but with restraining naturalimpulses. For example, when a person sees an expensivewatch in a store, a natural response may be a strong desireto have that watch. If the brain were concerned only withsatisfying that desire, the person would impulsively stealthe watch. However, most people understand that they can-


27

not simply act to satisfy whatever desire arises. Through along process of socialization, the brain has learned whichbehaviors are appropriate and which are not. Recognizingthat taking the watch will bring undesirable consequences,the brain acts to inhibit that natural impulse.

While the brain’s ability to restrain a person’s naturalimpulses helps him or her to cope with the demands of so-ciety, this restraint can be so overpowering that people of-ten feel stifled by it. Many people feel so inhibited,particularly in social situations, that they are afraid to takeany chances at all. They end up unable to make conversa-tion, to have fun, and to “be themselves.”

One of the attractions of alcohol is that it depresses theinhibiting powers of the brain. With the restraints eased,people often feel more relaxed and carefree. This accountsfor the “high” that alcohol produces. However, when thoserestraints are dulled, a person is also more likely to takedangerous chances and to be rude, offensive, and even vio-lent to others.

Similarly, alcohol reduces the brain’s ability to keep

The consumption ofalcohol affects aperson’s judgment,memory, reaction time,and restraint.

photo # 25314in hi-res photos folder


28

emotions under control. An intoxicated person is morelikely to experience uncontrollable anger, sadness, or joy.

Alcohol and eyesightAlcohol does not have any apparent effect on the sharp-

ness of a person’s vision. However, it does tend to narrowthe field of vision. A person under the influence of alcoholloses some peripheral vision—the ability to see what ishappening off to the side.

Alcohol also affects the eyes’ ability to adjust to light.The pupils regulate the amount of light entering the eyesby enlarging when it is dark and shrinking under brightlight. Alcohol interferes with the ability of the pupils toregulate incoming light. A brief exposure to bright lightcan cause an intoxicated person to be virtually blind forseveral seconds.

Alcohol and coordinationSince the nervous system controls the actions of the

muscles, any reduction in the efficiency of the brain leadsto reduced coordination. Those under the influence of al-cohol may have problems walking in a straight line, avoid-ing objects, maintaining balance, and manipulating objectswith their fingers. Performing relatively simple tasks suchas jumping rope, hammering a nail, or even picking up aglass from a table may be difficult.

Effects of drinking on drivingMany of alcohol’s effects on the nervous system have a

direct impact on driving ability. Vehicles today oftentravel at high speeds and in heavy traffic. Drivers must bealert to frequently posted signs regulating traffic andwarning them of dangers ahead. At busy intersections,traffic may come at the driver from at least four directions.Vehicles may shift lanes, enter from side streets or drive-ways, or suddenly stop with little or no warning. Bicyclesand pedestrians and hazardous road conditions may fur-ther complicate the situation. A driver must be alert at alltimes to this constantly changing scene because a single


29

unexpected event can cause a serious accident.Alcohol puts drivers at risk by making them sleepy and

dulling their overall senses. Intoxicated drivers have trou-ble focusing on the task of driving and often fail to payattention to signs and to the movements of others. Testshave proven that the more a person drinks, the slower thereactions. This can prove deadly, for example, in a case inwhich a child darts out into a street. A sober person willhit the brake far more quickly than someone who has

Alcohol reduces aperson’s ability to drivesafely at high speedsand in heavy traffic.


30

been drinking.

A moment’s lapse in attentionThe result of even a moment’s lapse at the wheel can de-

stroy lives, as seventeen-year-old Brandon Blenden dis-covered. On the evening of Super Bowl Sunday in January1995, Blenden was driving along the streets of Gulfport,Mississippi, in his pickup. Not only had he been drinkingheavily, but he was still drinking from a beer bottle wedgedbetween his legs as he approached an intersection.

In front of him, Ann Lee pulled to a stop to let the cross-traffic clear. She was making a quick run to the grocerystore with her four-year-old daughter, Whitney, buckledinto the backseat. His senses dulled by alcohol, Blendennever noticed the stopped car in front of him, nor did it oc-cur to him to slow down approaching the intersection. Hispickup slammed into the rear of Lee’s car, crushing it likean accordion. The collision sent Whitney Lee into a coma.Two days later, the little girl died.

Judgment and drivingThe constantly shifting environment of traffic requires

dozens of quick, clearheaded decisions. Drivers must beable to decide such life-and-death actions as whether theyhave room to pass a car on a highway, whether they havetime to make a left turn in front of an oncoming bus, how topull out of a skid on a slippery stretch of road, how much toslow down on a curve, whether they need to speed up orslow down to merge onto a busy freeway, or how hard toapply the brake when the car in front suddenly slows.

By clouding the brain’s judgment, alcohol places thedriver, any passengers, and those around him or her indeadly danger of the driver’s making the wrong decision inany of these situations, as well as many others.

Restraint and drivingBecause of the potential for serious injury, anyone oper-

ating a motor vehicle needs to exercise caution at all times.People who are high on alcohol, however, often feel freed


31

from the usual inhibitions that protect them from acting onimpulse. A sober person traveling behind a slow-movingcar may feel irritated or frustrated at being delayed. How-ever, he or she is not likely to act on that frustration bypassing the car on a blind curve. An intoxicated person, onthe other hand, may be unable to squelch the impulse.

The lack of self-restraint resulting from alcohol use canlead to dozens of deadly situations, such as driving fortymiles over the speed limit, running a stop sign, weavingthrough traffic, and refusing to yield the right of way. Thislack of restraint also means that drunk drivers are morelikely to get angry at other drivers and purposely take ac-tions that endanger them.

Vision and drivingAlcohol’s effect on peripheral vision is especially dan-

gerous to the operation of a motor vehicle. Many potentialhazards of the road do not appear directly in front of thedriver but, rather, come from the side. Drivers with goodperipheral vision can recognize a car pulling out of a drive-way and can take action before the car causes a problem.Intoxicated drivers are not likely to notice any potentialproblem until it actually appears in front of them. By then,in many cases, it may be too late.

An intoxicated driver’s inability to adjust quickly to

Drinking alcoholadversely affects adriver’s vision,especially at night.


32

changes in light makes drunk driving at night especiallydangerous. The glare of approaching headlights can causea drunk driver to steer blindly for several seconds.

Coordination and drivingThe act of driving requires precise coordination, partic-

ularly of the hands in steering and the foot in operating theaccelerator and the brake. Even the basic task of keepingthe vehicle on a straight course is often difficult for intox-icated drivers. They present a danger to others by fre-quently veering out of their lane and over the centerdividing line and present a danger to themselves and theirpassengers by driving off the road. More difficult actions,such as swerving to avoid an object or a person, may beall but impossible to a person whose coordination is im-paired by alcohol.

Levels of intoxicationAlcohol affects different people in different ways. In

general, a person with a BAC of .05 does not show physi-cal effects but will experience a reduction in the ability tothink, react, make judgments, and restrain impulses. Ac-cording to the American Medical Association’s Committeeof Medicolegal Problems, at .10 BAC, the legal level of in-toxication for most states, half the population shows obvi-ous signs of drunkenness. This includes some difficulty inhand-eye coordination, walking in a straight line, andmaintaining balance, and slurred speech.

Individuals with a BAC of .20 generally display all ofthese problems in an obvious way. They have difficultystanding or walking at all. Emotional behavior is often se-verely affected. A person with this level of intoxicationmay be exceptionally loud or violent, or may cry or laughuncontrollably. A .30 BAC affects the deeper thoughtprocesses. Those who drink to this level may not be able tounderstand simple questions and may be unaware of wherethey are or how they got there. BAC levels approaching .40result in unconsciousness and possible death.


33

“Safe” drinking and drivingMany people do not show any obvious physical effects

of drinking at levels of .10 and below, and there are someindividuals whose BAC can reach .20 before they showany of the more recognizable signs of intoxication. Ac-cording to James Jacobs in Drunk Driving: An AmericanDilemma, “At a BAC of 0.10 some drivers can operate avehicle with reasonable skill and judgment.” 13 Because ofthis, people often make a distinction between “safe” socialdrinkers who can handle their liquor and reckless drunkdrivers. They note that the average BAC of intoxicated dri-vers involved in fatal accidents is .16, a level that indicatesirresponsible binge drinking. This fact, plus statisticsshowing that a person with a BAC of .15 runs one hundredtimes the risk of a nondrinker of being involved in a fatalcrash, seems to indicate that drunk driving is a problem foralcohol abusers and not for social drinkers.

However, other experts such as H. Laurence Ross, au-thor of Confronting Drunk Driving, argue that such an atti-tude is dangerous. Ross believes that drunk driving is amisleading term because it gives the impression that onlythose who are legally intoxicated pose a danger behind the

*Percentage reflects twelfth graders who reported drinking 5+ drinks in a row in the 2 weeks prior to the survey.

Binge Drinking Among Twelfth Grade Students

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

*50%

'75 '76 '77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98

Sou

rce:

The

Mon

itorin

g th

e F

utur

e S

tudy

, The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

ichi

gan.


34

wheel. He prefers the term “alcohol impaired driving” 14 toindicate that even moderate drinking reduces alertness,judgment, restraint, reaction time, and coordinationenough to pose a risk to motorists.

Statistics show that a driver with a BAC of .05, whichcan result from only two or three typical drinks, is twiceas likely as a nondrinker to be involved in a standardcrash. For this reason, the National Institute on AlcoholAbuse and Alcoholism considers operating a vehicle atany BAC level above .05 as driving while impaired. At aBAC of .08, which most states consider low enough to al-low operation of a motor vehicle, the risk is ten times thatof the average driver. A driver with a BAC of .10, which isthe border of the legally acceptable level in most states, istwenty times more likely than the average driver to suffera fatal accident.

The U.S. Department of Transportation believes thateven legal, socially acceptable levels of drinking cause adanger to the operation of motor vehicles. It has set .04 asthe legal BAC limit for those involved in commercialtransportation, such as truck driving.

Some studies have found even more persuasive evidencethat social drinking and driving do not mix. A study con-ducted by the University of Kentucky found that as few astwo drinks can seriously harm a person’s driving perfor-mance. Researchers Herbert Moskowitz and MarcelineBurns concluded that “Certain skills important for drivingare impaired at .01 to .02 BAC or, in other words, at thelowest levels that can be measured reliably.” 15 In otherwords, there is no distinct dividing line between a safe andan unsafe level of drinking and driving.


35

KEVIN TUNNELL HAD heard all the warnings aboutthe dangers of drinking and driving. But none of that ap-plied to him. After all, he could handle his liquor. Despitethe fact that he was only seventeen and not legally oldenough to drink, he had driven after drinking alcohol manytimes. In fact, he liked to brag to friends that he drove bet-ter when he was drunk.

On New Year’s Eve, Tunnell went to a party where hecelebrated the changing of the calendar by slurping downhalf a dozen glasses of champagne. Maybe it was seven oreight glasses. Shortly after 1 A.M., he left the party anddrove off.

At 1:15, Susan Herzon waved goodbye to her boyfriendafter leaving a party at his house and stepped into herVolkswagen. Unlike Tunnell, Herzon was not much of adrinker. Even though it was only a two-mile drive back toher home in Fairfax, Virginia, she had been careful toavoid alcohol that night. She was less than a mile fromhome when Tunnell roared down the highway toward herat fifty miles per hour in a thirty-mile-per-hour zone. Justbefore meeting Herzon’s car, Tunnell swerved across thedouble-yellow line. He slammed into the Volkswagen sohard that he knocked it backwards twenty yards onto alawn.

Herzon, vice president of her senior class and a top stu-dent, died from her injuries. Tunnell survived.

3Who Drinks andDrives and Why


36

The typical drunk driverIn many ways, Tunnell fits the profile of the typical

teenage drunk driver. According to Susan Herbel of the Na-tional Commission Against Drunk Driving, “Drunk drivingis very much a male problem.” 16 Estimates of the ratio ofmen to women who drink and drive reach as high as 9 to 1.Like Tunnell, drunk drivers tend to be white. They are mostoften frequent drivers who consider themselves good dri-vers, and frequent drinkers who take pride in their drinking.A Quincy, Massachusetts, study of more than a thousandcourt cases found that four out of five of those convicted ofdrunk driving were problem drinkers.

As in the Tunnell case, fatal accidents involving drunkdrivers occur far more commonly at night than during theday, and on weekends and holidays than during weekdays.Drinking and driving takes place far more often in suburbs,such as Fairfax, and rural areas than it does in urban areas.New York City, for example, holds 40 percent of its state’spopulation yet records only 3 percent of the state’s drunkdriving arrests. One survey found that 28 percent of thoseliving in suburban areas and 29 percent of those living inupstate New York admitted to drinking and driving, com-pared with only 11 percent in New York City.

Also, despite the common image of drunk drivers as re-peat offenders who are constantly drinking and driving,most drivers who are at fault in fatal vehicle crashes, likeTunnell, have no known prior arrests for drunk driving.

No profile fits allSome aspects of this case, however, do not fit the most

common drunk driving circumstances. Although alcohol-related crashes in which drunk drivers run into and killinnocent victims are the most tragic and receive thewidest publicity, more than half of the fatalities in alcohol-related accidents involve single-car crashes. Most ofthose killed in alcohol-related accidents are the drunk dri-vers themselves.

In reality, drunk driving is a complex problem that de-fies simple profiles and simple answers. While males,


37

whites, problem drinkers, and suburban or rural driversare more susceptible to drunk driving, alcohol-impaireddrivers come from all walks of life. There is no singleprofile that fits all teenage drunk drivers and alcohol-related crashes.

Teen drinkingSince no state allows teens to legally drink, teen drink-

ing and driving would not exist if people simply obeyedthe law. Yet teenagers have been breaking the drinkinglaws for as long as they have been on the books.

There are encouraging signs that drinking among youngpeople has been on the decline in recent years. Neverthe-less, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-

W. Va.(146)

In 1997 16,189 people were killedin alcohol-related traffic accidents. Thesedeaths comprise 38.6 percent of the totalnumber of traffic accidents that year.

Ky. (279)Tenn. (496)Arkansas

(142)

Missouri(509)

Illinois(587)

Wisconsin(329)

Minnesota(193)

Iowa(174)

South Dakota(61)

Kansas(201)

Oklahoma(302)

Colorado(218)

Wyoming(43)

Montana(120)

Idaho(102)

Oregon(228)

Washington(300)

Utah(75)

Arizona(433)

Nevada(160)

California(1,314)

North Dakota(50)

Nebraska(105)

Texas(1,748)

NewMexico(220)

Ind.(308)

Ohio(479)

South Carolina(318)

Georgia(578)

Florida(934)

Louisiana(421)

Hawaii(59)

Mississippi(344)

Alabama(473)

North Carolina(528)

Maryland(221)

Delaware (61)Va.

(383)New Jersey (282)Connecticut (152)

Rhode Island (41)

Mass.(209)

Maine(64)

Vermont(34)

New York(449)

Michigan(558)

New Hampshire(60)

Penn.(631)

Alaska(41)

Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatalities by State

Sou

rce:

MA

DD

.


38

tion reported in 1996 that about 9.5 million U.S. teenagersadmitted that they drank alcoholic beverages on occasion.Of this number, roughly 40 percent admitted to engaging inbinge drinking, which can be defined as drinking in excessfor the purpose of getting intoxicated. More than 20 percentdescribed themselves as problem drinkers. According to sta-tistics compiled in the same year by the Office of NationalDrug Control Policy, almost 45 percent of students ingrades six through eight used alcohol in the past year. Inother words, nearly half of the students had some experi-ence with drinking well before they reached driving age.More than seven out of ten students in grades nine throughtwelve admitted to alcohol use in the past year.

Peer pressure to drinkMost teens cite peer pressure as the main reason why

they start drinking in violation of the law. One of theirfriends invites or challenges them to drink. Unwilling toappear uncool or cowardly, teens often join in despite theirinitial reservations. While this sounds simple and straight-forward, the reasons why teens create peer pressure in fa-vor of drinking are more complex.

One of the most important factors is teens’ desire to beaccepted as grown-up and mature. Growing up is a long,gradual struggle for independence from parents. Through-out adolescence, young people become frustrated at beingtreated like small children with few rights and privileges oftheir own and in need of constant adult supervision. Theywant to be treated as responsible, capable adults, and theylook forward to assuming the privileges that come withadulthood.

Society has established the drinking of alcoholic bever-ages as one of the most prominent privileges that comeswith being an adult. That has not always been the case. Inthe earlier part of the twentieth century, a majority ofAmericans frowned on the use of alcoholic beverages.This disapproval was so strong that, in 1918, the nationpassed a constitutional amendment banning the sale ofany alcoholic beverage. But after these Prohibition laws


39

were overturned in 1932, American consumption of alco-hol rose steadily.

Presently, there is virtually no support for laws banningthe sale of alcoholic beverages. More than two-thirds ofall adults drink alcohol to some degree. Those who drinkaverage three drinks per day, with most drinkers consum-ing less and heavy drinkers consuming far more. Manycurrent customs and institutions not only allow drinkingto take place but encourage it. Drinking has achieved sucha popular status among adults that it has become a tempt-ing target for teens claiming the adult status that they sodesperately seek.

Why adults drinkThe question of why teens drink cannot be answered

without first considering why adults drink. For many

Prohibition provedunpopular even thougha majority ofAmericans disapprovedof alcohol.


40

adults, particularly those with European backgrounds,drinking is a tradition that dates back many generations. Incountries such as France, Italy, and Germany, wine andbeer are considered the standard drinks that go with meals.

Many adults have come to enjoy the benefits that alco-hol can give. Alcohol’s ability to decrease the nervoussystem’s level of alertness may help people to relax. Andby interfering with the brain’s normal function of restrain-ing impulses, it helps some people to be more open intalking with others. These effects have helped make alco-hol a popular feature, and sometimes the main feature, ofmany parties.

Alcohol has come to be accepted as a natural part of en-tertainment. The average American now drinks more alco-hol than milk. People go to a bar to unwind from a stressfulweek. They drink a few beers while cheering on their fa-vorite sports team at the ball park. Weddings and reunionsoften feature an open bar that livens up the mood of theguests. Couples who do not normally drink alcohol withtheir meals order wine as part of a splurge at a fancyrestaurant.

Symbol of rebellionWidespread acceptance of alcohol among adults sends

the message to teens that drinking is a positive activity.Some of them find themselves attracted to the same fea-tures that attract adults. Alcohol makes them feel more re-laxed and confident, less anxious and inhibited. Butbeyond its role as a companion for entertainment and par-ties, alcohol has a hold on society as one of its main sym-bols of rebellion. Virtually everyone concedes the harmfuleffects of alcohol. Millions of people become addicted to itand spend their lives in a futile attempt to escape itsclutches. The Centers for Disease Control estimate thatnearly 100,000 Americans die each year from the effects ofalcohol. The substance has destroyed families, careers,lives, and even societies.

Yet even in the face of this, alcohol has traditionallybeen regarded in many circles as harmless, or even as a


41

joke. Bragging about how much a person is going to drinkor did drink is common. Heavy drinkers are often viewedas comical, adventurous, fun-loving spirits. At worst, soci-ety views drinking as a normal human weakness. Thosewho oppose drinking are often stereotyped as humorlessbusybodies who like to run other people’s lives. Alcoholhas come to stand as a symbol of independence againstsuch spoilsports.

This makes alcohol especially attractive to youth, whooften have the urge to rebel against the restrictions thatadults place on them. Even teens who are well aware of thedangers of alcohol may drink as a way of expressing theirindependence. Adults encourage this by shrugging off evenbinge drinking among teens as just “kids being kids.”

Some entertainers build up a teen audience by appeal-ing directly to this rebellious instinct. This can result in

Drinking has become away for many people torelax, unwind, and beless inhibited aroundtheir friends andothers.


42

the promotion of drinking as the “cool” thing to do.Robert DuRant of the Bowman Gray School of Medicineat Wake Forest University found that at least 20 percent ofthe music videos shown on television included some formof alcohol use. In three out of four of these cases, drinkingwas presented as positive. According to DuRant, nearly 10percent showed the use of alcohol by someone who ap-peared to be well under the legal drinking age. Suchvideos reinforce the view that drinking alcohol is the “in”thing to do.

Advertising: persuading people to drinkAlcoholic beverages are not only a common part of

society, but they are part of a large industry that employs2 million people in the United States. Americans spendmore than $20 billion directly on alcoholic beverages andprobably another $80 million on businesses that depend onalcohol. With so much money at stake, those in the alcoholindustry have a huge interest in attracting and keeping cus-tomers. Critics note that the alcoholic beverage industry isin the awkward position of depending on a social problemto stay in business. While beer, wine, and liquor companiespublicly promote responsible drinking, they would suffercrippling losses of income if all problem drinkers starteddrinking moderately.

Alcoholic beverage companies actively promote theirproducts in the mass media. Beer advertisements make upnearly 5 percent of all commercials on television and morethan 7 percent of all radio advertisements. The people inthese commercials using alcohol are usually attractive,popular, athletic people—the kind of people most teenswould like to be. Beer companies have a long tradition ofassociating their product with the most popular sportingevents, which helps promote beer drinking as somethingthat “real men” do.

Industry executives argue that their ads are designed toattract drinkers of other brands to their brand and to keeptheir customers loyal to their product. Yet future sales de-pend on attracting new customers. As one management


43

consultant notes, “Everything the companies do is nowgeared much more to their younger audience.” 17 This audi-ence includes teens who are not legally permitted to drink.

Writing for Business Week, David Leonhardt concludedthat liquor companies have directly targeted teens. “Liquorcompanies have a presence in virtually every publicationwith a sizable teen audience,” 18 he notes. As an example,he cites the music magazine SPIN. About 30 percent ofSPIN’s readers are under eighteen years of age; nearly halfare under the legal drinking age of twenty-one. Yet themagazine is filled from cover to cover with liquor ads.

Analysts point to cartoonish labels and mascots andgame-filled websites sponsored by alcoholic beveragecompanies as selling techniques designed to appeal moreto teens than to adults. The same is true of new productssuch as alcopops, which taste like lemonade but containthe same alcohol content as beer.

The fact that companies are willing to spend over $1 bil-lion a year on advertisements is strong evidence that adver-tising is effective in persuading people to use the product.Ad experts note that in the face of several decades of heavyadvertising by liquor, beer, and soft drink companies,young people overwhelmingly prefer to spend money onthese products rather than drink water, which is not onlyhealthier but free of charge.

Why teens drink and driveAlthough teens may drink for many reasons, no one

drinks because they want to drive drunk. Drunk drivinghappens because people who drink find themselves in theposition of having to transport themselves in a vehicle.Teen drunk driving occurs in large numbers not only be-cause many teens drink but because teens are so dependenton automobiles for transportation.

People in the United States own almost a third of all au-tomobiles in the world. There is one automobile for every1.4 persons in the country, compared with the worldwideaverage of 1 per every 10 persons. Owning an automobilehas virtually become a necessity for participating fully in


44

American society. The spreading of the population fromcities into the suburbs has greatly contributed to the needfor automobiles. In a densely packed urban area, masstransit such as buses and subways provides the most effi-cient transportation. Stores can be maintained within walk-ing distance of large numbers of customers. But the widelyspread houses of the suburbs make mass transit less work-able. Suburbs have replaced corner stores with malls, builton cheap land at the edges of the communities, that can bereached only by automobile.

Operation of an automobile has become an importantsymbol of status and self-esteem for American teens. Adriver’s license is one of the earliest privileges of adult-hood granted to teens. Because they are no longer depen-dent on adults to take them where they need or want to go,teens with driver’s licenses enjoy considerably more free-dom than teens who do not drive.

Beer companies suchas Anheuser-Buschhave directly targetedteens and young adultsthrough the use ofmascots likeBudweiser’s talkingfrogs.

photo #1587994in high-res photos folder


45

Deadly gambleBut along with the freedom that owning a driver’s li-

cense provides comes a serious responsibility that carriesthe potential for tragedy. Safe operation of a vehicle re-quires not only training but maturity, judgment, and expe-rience. By developing a lifestyle in which teens are heavilydependent on the private automobile, Americans haveshown that they are willing to gamble that beginning dri-vers have enough judgment and maturity to make up fortheir lack of experience. For thousands of young drivers, itis a gamble that they lose—at the cost of their lives and thelives of their victims. Motor vehicle accidents are the num-ber one killer of teens in the United States. They causeroughly one-third of all deaths of young people ages fif-teen to twenty. Statistics show that teen drivers are at fargreater risk behind the wheel than are older, more experi-enced drivers. More nineteen-year-olds are killed in trafficaccidents than any other age group, with eighteen-year-olds right behind. According to the NHTSA, drivers agesfifteen to twenty made up only 7.1 percent of the drivingpopulation in 1996, yet they accounted for 14.9 percent ofall driver fatalities.

As a society in which teens are almost completely de-pendent on the automobile for transportation, the UnitedStates has put inexperienced drivers at grave risk. The ad-dition of alcohol, whose effects make driving many timesmore difficult, greatly multiplies the risk factor. Yet, by ac-cepting and even encouraging the use of alcohol, Ameri-cans have made it easy for alcohol to enter the picture.

Bad examplesOne reason why teens drink and drive is that adults have

set a poor example. Approximately 1.5 million Americanswill be arrested this year for driving while intoxicated, thevast majority of them adults. A 1990 study in Minnesotafound that 8 percent of all licensed drivers had one or moredrunk driving violations on their record.

Yet even this is only the tip of the iceberg. The number ofpeople caught and charged with driving while intoxicated


46

is only a small fraction of the number of people who drinkand drive. In a poll of business executives under the age offifty, 85 percent admitted they had driven while drunk.Safety experts estimate that close to 20 percent of the dri-vers in the United States drive while legally intoxicated atleast once a year.

Perhaps the most dangerous impression that adults passon to young drivers is that drinking beer and driving is nota problem. But, in fact, more than 60 percent of those con-victed of driving while intoxicated report drinking onlybeer. Many of them express surprise that drinking beercould put them over the legal BAC limit.

Inexperience with drinkingBy setting a relatively high BAC level at which driving is

considered both legal and acceptable, states have created asituation in which young drivers unintentionally drivedrunk. Teens have been taught that drinking and driving issafe as long as one knows one’s limits. However, manyadults have difficulty determining exactly how much theycan drink and safely drive; the problem is greatly multipliedfor teens who have had little or no experience with drinking.

Inexperienced drinkers may not notice the effect that al-cohol is having on their nervous systems. In fact, drinkingalcohol clouds the judgment they need to determinewhether they are in any condition to drive. Worse yet, alco-hol blocks some of the nerve impulses that govern restraintand caution. This means people who have been drinkingare more inclined to take chances. They tend to feel confi-dent and in complete control of the situation. The result isthat many teens who drink badly overestimate their abilityto operate a motor vehicle.

Inexperienced driversStatistics show that young drivers are actually more re-

sponsible than adults when it comes to drinking and dri-ving. A smaller percentage of teens take to the road in anintoxicated condition. Unfortunately, those who do aremore likely than adults to pay for their mistakes. Accord-


47

ing to James Jacobs, “While fewer young drivers drink,those who do are more dangerous drivers and are signifi-cantly overrepresented among traffic fatalities.” 19 Youngdrivers have especially high accident rates at low BAC lev-els compared with adults.

Technically, teens have better driving skills than mostother age groups. Their eyesight and reactions are superiorto those of older drivers. They have more accidents simplybecause they lack driving experience. This inexperiencemeans that they are more likely to get themselves into situa-tions that require quick reactions, one of the responses thatis dulled even by low BACs. Teens’ inexperience in judgingthe speed and distance of an approaching car gives themless of a margin for error. That small margin may disappearaltogether when their judgment is impaired by alcohol.

Disregard for consequencesBoth teens and adults often drive drunk because of their

lack of concern over consequences. Tragic collisions are

The idea that beer doesnot affect driving is adangerous one.



48

viewed as freak accidents that happen to other people. Infact, the vast majority of trips taken by drunk drivers donot end in tragedy. Most of the time, nothing happens atall. Once a person has driven while intoxicated with noharm, it is easier to do it a second time.

When the likelihood of disaster seems remote, it is easyfor teens to give in to the peer pressure that comes withthat age. Not only will many teens drive after drinking, butthey will also get into vehicles with unsafe drivers. Onlywhen tragedy strikes do they realize that the consequencesare so enormous that they are not worth even a tiny risk.

Every year, thousands of teens find that out the hardway. Anne was one of these. During her senior year of highschool, Anne broke up with her boyfriend. Trying to pullher out of her depression over the situation, Anne’s friendstook her to a local restaurant. There she happened to seeher boyfriend’s older brother, Fred, sitting at the bar.

Anne spoke to Fred, who said he was sure his brotherwould be interested in getting back together with her. Heoffered to take her to him that night so that they couldmake up. Recognizing that Fred had obviously had toomuch to drink, Anne hesitated to go with him. But fearfulof missing her opportunity to regain her boyfriend, shetook the chance.

Less than half a mile from the restaurant, Fred’s blackCorvette crossed the center line and slammed head-on intoan approaching vehicle. Fred died instantly; Anne died aweek later on her eighteenth birthday.


49

MORE PEOPLE IN the United States are arrested fordriving under the influence (DUI) than for any other rea-son. In 1996 this offense accounted for one out of every tenarrests in the country, a total of nearly 1.5 million citations.Taken together with the staggering death toll from drunkdrivers, this statistic supports the statement by well-knowncriminal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz: “The most seri-ous crime in America is not drug use, or rape or armed rob-bery. It is drunken driving.” 20

On the other hand, some legal experts argue that drunkdriving, by itself, should not be considered a crime at all.They maintain that drunk driving is a traffic offense, whichis different from a crime. Unlike for criminal offenses,traffic offenders are not arrested and charged with a crime.Traffic violations can be cleared up by paying a fine, with-out formal hearings, or a trial. A person who fails to noticea stop sign, drives ten miles over the speed limit, or parkstoo long at a regulated parking space can hardly bebranded a criminal.

Careless driving or criminal offense?Critics of drunk driving laws note that traffic laws are

concerned only with actual violations such as speeding, fail-ure to stop, reckless driving, and so on. They maintain thatwhat causes a person to speed, fail to stop, or drive reck-lessly should make no difference. Drunk driving appears to

4The Law and

Drunk Driving


50

be a glaring exception to that rule. Drunk dri-vers may be arrested even if they are observ-ing all the traffic rules.

Law-enforcement authorities argue thatdrunk drivers should be arrested even ifthey are driving legally because they pose athreat to those around them. Critics counterthat sleepy or inattentive drivers pose a riskas well, but no one would consider arrestingsomeone simply for being tired. In no caseother than drunk driving does the traffic lawallow a person to be arrested for somethingthat might happen. The critics say that itwould make more sense to eliminate thecharge of drunk driving altogether and sim-ply prosecute drunk drivers for the viola-tions and crimes they commit while drivingdrunk.

Those who support singling out drunk dri-ving as a separate offense argue that every-one has a duty to drive as safely as theypossibly can. By the very act of drinking, aperson knowingly takes action that reduceshis or her ability to drive safely. Further-more, drunk drivers pose such an increasedrisk for accidents that they endanger the pub-

lic safety. Arresting them only when they actually commitan offense would be like allowing people to fire guns atrandom along a street and arresting them only if they actu-ally hit somebody.

Blood alcohol content as proof

Until the development of chemical tests in the late1940s, a drunk driving charge was similar to a reckless dri-ving charge. Both were judgment calls based on certain be-haviors. Drunk driving, however, was more difficult toprove because it involved not just actions but the actualphysical condition of the accused.

Some people believethat driving whileintoxicated is a moreserious crime than druguse, rape, or armedrobbery.



51

Once chemical tests that determined a person’s blood al-cohol content were made available to law-enforcement of-ficials, the matter of drunkenness was easy to prove. It wasthen up to the governments to decide what level of BAC di-minished a person’s ability to drive so severely that he orshe should not be allowed behind the wheel.

Until the 1970s, most states used .15 as the BAC limit atwhich a person was considered intoxicated. This lenientstandard meant that a person could down a twelve pack ofbeer or seven strong drinks in a couple of hours and stilllegally drive. As public awareness of drunk driving rose,most states dropped their standard to .10. In recent years,several states have joined Canada in lowering the thresholdeven lower to .08. Scandinavian countries have set .05 asthe legal limit for driving.

Since teenagers cannot legally drink in the UnitedStates, the legal BAC limits do not apply to them in thesame way. In 1995, the U.S. Congress passed legislationthat required all states to pass “zero tolerance” laws foryoung drivers. Within two years, about forty-four stateshad done so. These laws declare that a teen with a BAC of.02, about the smallest amount of alcohol that can be reli-ably measured by normal police techniques, is in violationof the law.

Getting caughtFor most of the century, the only way for police to stop

and arrest drunk drivers was to catch them in a traffic vio-lation or in the act of driving dangerously. People whodrink and drive at moderate BAC levels, and even many athigh levels, do not always show obvious signs of drunken-ness, such as weaving across lanes. That meant that thevast majority of those who drank and drove went unde-tected. Experts estimate that the odds of being arrested fordriving under the influence are less than 1 in 1,000 tripsand less than 1 in 5,000 miles of driving.

In an effort to crack down on drunk drivers, in the 1980spolice started randomly stopping cars on the road and test-ing drivers for BAC. That effort stopped when the courts


52

ruled that such actions violated the Fourth Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens from unrea-sonable search. However, the courts did allow roadblocks,as long as drivers were warned that a checkpoint wasahead and police stopped all cars instead of singling outcertain drivers for special treatment.

In recent years, many states have used roadblocks tocatch drunk drivers. As part of a “Booze It and Lose It”campaign, North Carolina set up thousands of roadblocks ayear in the mid-1990s. Jamirius Cureton had the misfor-tune of driving his Honda Civic in the Monroe, North Car-olina, area after drinking beer in 1997. Despite signswarning of the roadblock ahead, he continued drivingalong the moderately traveled road until he was stopped byone of twenty-eight officers on hand. For most motorists,the delay lasted only a minute or two, while BAC testswere processed in a $200,000 mobile laboratory aboard a

A police officer watchesas a driver stopped at aroadblock takes acoordination test.


53

converted school bus. Other than seat belt violations, theofficers found very few traffic violations that evening.Only one driver tested over the state’s BAC limit of .08.That offender was immediately taken to jail.

Cureton tested under the .08 standard. But as an eighteen-year-old, he was not legally allowed to drink at all and sohe paid the penalty of a suspended license for one year.

The breathalyzerThe test that police asked Cureton to take was a breatha-

lyzer test, which is standard procedure whether a driver ispulled over because of suspicious driving or as part of aroadblock. Because traffic regulations differ from criminallaw, the person stopped does not have the normal rightsgranted to those accused of a crime. All states have passedwhat are commonly called “implied consent” laws. Ac-cording to such laws, anyone who applies for a driver’s li-cense agrees to abide by the traffic laws in that state,including the requirement to provide a breath sample foralcohol testing. The penalty for not providing such a sam-ple is generally automatic loss of license.

Breathalyzer analysis is based on the scientific findingthat there is a direct ratio between the amount of alcohol inthe blood and the amount in the air in the lungs. The BACis figured by multiplying the amount of alcohol in thebreath by 2,100. To test a driver’s BAC, the driver blowsinto the mouthpiece of a device until he has emptied hislungs in one breath. The breathalyzer device traps only thelast portion of the air sample, which is the air that comesdirectly from the lungs.

This sample is forced through a small tube that containsa solution of sulfuric acid and potassium dichromate. Asthe air bubbles through the yellow liquid, the sulfuric acidextracts the alcohol. The potassium dichromate thenchanges the alcohol to acetic acid. This change causes theyellow liquid to change color. The amount of color changeis measured by photoelectric cells, and a mathematical for-mula converts that figure to the BAC. The breathalyzerprovides a fairly accurate quick estimate of BAC. When


54

necessary, police obtain a sample of blood, which can pro-vide a more precise analysis.

Legal consequencesA teen arrested for driving after drinking may face a

number of charges, depending on the circumstances andthe damage that results. The most common charges are dri-ving while intoxicated (DWI) and underage drinking. Thepunishment for first-time offenders in the more routinecases usually involves a fine and suspension of license, andpossibly probation.

If property damage occurs as a result of intoxication, theoffender will have to pay for the damages. Repeat offendersand those who are more seriously drunk are likely to facestiffer penalties—higher fines, jail terms, longer probation,and loss of license. Scandinavian countries have a separatecharge of “aggravated driving while intoxicated” for thosewhose BAC is above .15. This charge carries a prison sen-tence, whereas normal DWI involves only a fine.

A nurse monitors the results of abreathalyzer test.


55

Loss of life as a result of the actions of a drunk drivercan bring criminal charges as well, most commonlymanslaughter. Manslaughter is the act of causing anotherperson’s death without the intent to do so. Conviction ofmanslaughter brings a jail term. Judges may also requireoffenders to perform a given number of hours of commu-nity service. This often takes the form of public appear-ances to serve as an example and a warning to other teens.

Judges may also impose special penalties designed toforce offenders to take responsibility for the suffering theycause. Brandon Blenden, whose drunken driving killedfour-year-old Whitney Lee, received a sentence of twentyyears in prison. In addition, the court required him to writea $1 check to her parents every week for the next ten yearsas restitution. The money was not important, and in factthe Lees never cash the checks. But to an otherwise law-abiding person, the regular checks serve as a constant re-minder of the Lees’ unending loss.

Getting toughIn the past two decades, most of the emphasis in the

fight against drunk driving has been on tougher laws andstricter penalties. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, for ex-ample, has focused much of its energy on longer and morefrequent jail sentences and stiffer fines even for first-timeoffenders. At the peak of its influence in the late 1980s,MADD had more than 370 national chapters, a member-ship of nearly 20,000, and cash contributions of over $40million per year.

In response to the lobbying efforts of MADD, RID, theNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and othergroups, most states in the past two decades have increasedthe probability and length of jail time for drunk drivers. In-creased penalties for drunk drivers have great appeal to thepublic, which has been outraged by reports of drunk dri-vers with several prior convictions let loose on the streetswith only a mild slap on the wrist. These punishments pro-vide some sense of justice, however inadequate, for fami-lies whose loved ones have been victims of drunk drivers.


56

Such policies also appear to have the effect of getting themost dangerous drivers off the road and keeping them off.

Debate continues, however, as to how far the law shouldgo in punishing those who make the mistake of drinkingand driving. Several states have raised the charges that canbe brought against a drunk driver to the level of murder.This has raised the question, Should drunk drivers whocause deaths be prosecuted in the same manner as crimi-nals who intentionally murder their victims?

Murder chargesFor many decades, states treated cases of death caused

by drunk drivers differently from other manslaughtercases. The penalties were more lenient. But as incidents ofirresponsible drinking produced outrage over local deaths,more than a dozen states passed laws allowing those whokilled while driving drunk to be convicted of murder—theintentional killing of another. Although the death was obvi-ously not planned, legislatures declared that the extremerecklessness of driving a car while drunk indicated such adisregard for human life that a murder charge was justified.In 1976, a man in Montgomery, Alabama, who caused adeath by drunk driving was convicted of first-degree mur-der by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. The AlabamaSupreme Court, however, struck down the verdict. By the1980s, discouraged by such opinions, district attorneysstopped prosecuting drunk drivers as murderers in allstates except Alabama and Tennessee.

However, as public awareness of drunk driving grewduring the 1980s, states began to get bolder in a renewedeffort to prosecute drunk driving deaths as murder.

More than a horrible accidentOne of the most publicized drunk driving cases centered

on the actions of Thomas Jones, who had been taking aprescription drug to relieve the pain he suffered ever sincelosing part of his leg in a lawn mower accident. As Joneswas well aware, this drug had a severe effect on his ner-vous system when combined with alcohol. Yet on the


57

evening of September 4, 1996, he drank beer after takinghis medication and then stepped into his Nissan Altima.

Jones’s head began swimming so badly that he could notkeep the car in its lane. He bumped another car twice. Heveered to the right and struck the curb so hard he nearlyflipped over. Instead of recognizing his inability to operatethe vehicle, he continued on. At about 10:30 P.M., he turnedonto a two-lane road and again wandered over the centerdivider, traveling at least ten miles an hour over the thirty-five-mile-per-hour speed limit.

Fionna Penney was driving in the opposite direction onher way to a party. With her were five friends, all studentsat Wake Forest University. When she saw Jones speedingdirectly toward her, she cranked the wheel hard to the leftto turn onto a side street. Just at that moment, though,Jones steered back into his lane. Before Penney couldcomplete the turn, Jones rammed broadside into herMazda. Penney and three others were injured in the crash.Julie Hanson and Maia Witzl did not survive.

Many states nowconsider deadlyaccidents involvingalcohol to be acts ofmurder.


58

A blood test performed shortly after the accident foundJones’s BAC to be only .051, under North Carolina’s .08limit. Yet the effects of alcohol combined with thepainkiller were obvious. Furthermore, this was not the firsttime Jones had endangered lives with his drinking. He hadbeen convicted of drunk driving twice before and had re-cently been charged a third time.

Prosecutors charged Jones with first-degree murder,even though no one accused him of intentionally killingthe students. Under the North Carolina law, if a driver will-fully took actions that put other lives at extreme risk, pros-ecutors did not have to show actual intent. North Carolinalaw also permitted the death penalty when murder wascommitted in the course of committing another felony.Noting that repeat drunk driving was a felony, prosecutorssought the death penalty. “Everybody needs to wake upand realize that these things don’t just happen byaccident,” 21 argued the prosecutors. It was the first time inAmerican history that a jury was asked to sentence a per-son to death for drunk driving.

The jury had no trouble convicting Jones of the murders,but the death sentence was a different matter. As AndrewLeipold, a law professor at Duke University, explained,“We give the death penalty to people we’re afraid of, topeople that are different from us. And drunk drivers aren’t,because they’re our neighbors, or they’re us.” 22 Even theparents of the victims did not want Jones to be executed. Inthe end, the jury did not demand that Jones pay for his mis-take with his life. But they did not let him off the hook.Jones received a sentence of two life terms without thepossibility of parole.

Confiscating vehiclesThe Jones case is an example of the government’s recent

trend to curb drunk driving by getting tough with drunkdrivers. A similar example took place in New York City in1999. Taking advantage of a law designed to strike at hard-core drug dealers, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani announced thatthe city would set up roadblocks and confiscate the cars of


59

those accused of drunk driving, even first-time offenders.“It isn’t punishment,” Giuliani explained. “It’s remedial.” 23

New York attorneys claimed the city was within itsrights because it can confiscate property used in the courseof committing a crime, and cars are obviously used in thecourse of drunk driving. They noted that one of their firstroadblocks caught Francisco Almonte, a man with fiveDWI convictions and a BAC of .19. Impounding his carseemed the only way to get a hazard such as Almonte offthe road.

But the measure has drawn many critics. They note thateven if a driver is found not guilty in court, the drivers stillhave to go through civil court proceedings to win backtheir cars. Norman Seigal of the New York Civil LibertiesUnion declared the policy “excessive and unAmerican.”Former Queens district attorney Dino Lombardi agreed,calling the penalty “grossly out of proportion to thecrime.” 24

As an example of the unfairness, critics pointed to an-other of the first victims of the policy, a Russian immigrant

Mayor RudolphGiuliani of New Yorkhas introduced a get-tough policy againstdrunk driving.


60

on his way home from the birthday party of a friend’s one-year-old. His BAC was barely above the legal limit, at .11,and the man had never been arrested for drunk driving.Even though he desperately needed his car to get to workthe city took it.

Tougher BAC standardsSeveral states have attempted to expand the laws against

drinking and driving to include lowering the allowableBAC to .08, and most other states are under pressure frompublic interest groups to follow suit. The reasoning behindthe move is that drivers with a blood alcohol content of be-tween .08 and .10 are dangerous to the public, yet policecan do nothing about them.

Such attempts face strong opposition from the liquor,restaurant, and bar industries, however, who warn that thelower BAC limit would make criminals of moderatedrinkers. They also worry that those who want to lower theBAC levels are gradually bringing about their own form ofProhibition. Manufacturers of alcoholic beverages andtheir allies doubt that public interest groups will be satis-fied with reducing the minimum BAC to .08. They fearthat these people will keep pushing to lower the acceptableBAC level for driving to zero. They argue that this is notonly unnecessary but would infringe on people’s freedomand cause terrible economic loss to thousands of people.

Even some groups concerned with reducing drunk dri-ving question whether lowering the allowable BAC is agood thing. They fear that such campaigns may actuallyhurt their efforts by creating angry opposition from the ma-jority of Americans who drink moderately.

Does getting tough work?The strategy of passing tougher penalties has two goals:

to raise the cost of drinking and driving so high that fewpeople will risk the consequence and to provide victimswith a sense of justice. However, while tougher laws mayprovide some small comfort to families of drunk drivingvictims, according to Laurence Ross, “Little in the way of


61

reduced drunk driving has been found in most studies ofenacted jailing policies.” 25

One of the main reasons for this is a simple matter oflogic. How can society raise the stakes for driving drunkany higher than they already are? Individuals who are de-termined to risk their life, the lives of friends and familywho drive with them, and the lives of others on the road by

Doctors try to revive avictim of a drunkdriver. Extensive finesor jail terms are notlikely to stop peoplewho are determined torisk lives by drinkingand driving.photo #DW002855

in hi-res photos folder


62

drinking and driving are not likely to be scared off by therisk of increased jail time or a larger fine.

Furthermore, people who make the decision to drivedrunk do not have control of the judgment and inhibitionfunctions of their brain when they make that decision. Inmany cases, they are not capable of taking into account theincreased consequences of deciding to drive while intoxi-cated. Without incentives or penalties to control drinkingin the first place, getting tough will not have much effect inpersuading people not to drive when drunk.

Another flaw of increased penalties is that they assumedrunk driving problems are caused by a small minority ofcriminally irresponsible individuals. But although the typi-cal drunk driver is thought of as a person who continues todrive while seriously impaired despite several arrests, mostof those arrested for driving while intoxicated are other-wise respectable individuals with no prior arrests. Criticsof drunk driving crackdowns ask what is to be gained fromputting otherwise productive and law-abiding citizens be-hind bars for long periods of time.

Finally, increasing the penalties for drunk driving doesnot deal with the reasons why people drink and drive in thefirst place. As horrible as the effects of drunk driving maybe, there is a limited amount of money that society is will-ing to spend on the problem. Critics of “get tough” laws ar-gue that this limited money would be better spent onpreventing people from driving drunk than on punishingthem after the damage has been done.


63

EXPERTS ON CRIMINAL behavior point out thatconsequences tend to affect people’s behavior only if theyare swift and certain. As it stands, only a tiny percentage ofdrunk drivers are unlucky enough to be stopped and ar-rested. People have good reason to believe that, no matterhow high the penalties for drunk driving, they are notlikely to be caught and therefore do not need to changetheir behavior. For this reason, some propose that law-enforcement efforts should concentrate on stopping and ar-resting more of those who drive drunk rather thanincreasing the penalties.

Discouraging drinking and driving through roadblocks

One method of law enforcement that is now being usedmore frequently to discourage people from drinking anddriving is the roadblock. North Carolina’s impressive road-block campaign is the reason why, according to reporterMatthew Wald: “North Carolina is the state the Federalsafety experts cite as a national model in the campaignagainst drunk drivers.” 26 When the state started the road-block campaign, law-enforcement officials found thatabout 2 percent of those stopped were legally intoxicated.Within a year, that number had dropped to less than 1 per-cent. State officials believe they have cut their state’s drunkdriving rate to the lowest in the nation. Insurance compa-

5Preventing DrunkDriving Tragedies


64

nies agree and have dropped the state’s insurance premi-ums significantly.

Australia has obtained similar results with an even moreambitious program. One of its provinces hired two hun-dred extra police to stop and test hundreds of thousands ofdrivers each year. The result was a decline of 20 percent inthe number of drunk drivers, and that decline has heldsteady. Monroe, North Carolina, police chief Bobby Haulkbelieves that the reason for the success of roadblocks isthat they catch many drunk drivers who otherwise wouldbe endangering lives. “You take enough of them off theroad, you’re going to save somebody,” 27 said Haulk.

But even massive roadblock efforts actually removeonly a small fraction of the drunk drivers from the road.Safety experts argue that in both North Carolina and Aus-tralia, publicity was the key factor to reducing drunk dri-ving. The roadblocks’ main value lies in alerting the publicthat the chances of being arrested for driving while intoxi-

Signs posted ontaxicabs are part ofAustralia’s ambitiousefforts to curb drunkdriving.


65

cated have increased dramatically, thus causing them tochange their behavior.

The two major objections to roadblocks are the cost andthe threat to freedom. An effective roadblock campaign re-quires the services of many police officers. James Hall,chairperson of the National Transportation Safety Board,notes that they require “putting the political will and thedollars behind enforcement.” 28 The public may not be will-ing to pay the millions of dollars in taxes needed to paythese officers. When a roadblock patrolled by twenty-eightofficers makes only two arrests in an entire evening, as re-ported by New York Times reporter Matthew Wald, peoplequestion whether the effort is worth the cost. Critics ofroadblocks also express concern over the state’s ability tostop and question law-abiding citizens whenever itchooses. Such practices put the nation closer to a policestate in which the government keeps tight control over theactivities of all citizens.

License suspensionStudies have shown that the most effective way to pre-

vent drunk drivers from repeating their offense is to sus-pend their licenses. This keeps many of the mostdangerous drivers off the road for a period of time. Fur-thermore, the inconvenience of not being able to drive inAmerican society is a constant reminder of the folly ofdrunk driving, as opposed to paying a fine and then forget-ting about it.

The problem with this has been that the risk of beingcaught driving with a suspended license is small. Manysuspended drivers would rather run the risk than be with-out a car. In 1980, the state of California discovered that il-legal drivers were involved in almost 40 percent of all fatalaccidents. Some California cities responded by taking thecars of those driving without a license and keeping themfor up to thirty days. Such a program helped San Franciscoreduce fatal crashes involving drunk drivers by nearly 80percent in 1995. Other states have stepped up enforcementby replacing the license plates on the vehicles of those


66

whose licenses have been suspended with plates that canbe easily identified by police.

Reducing drinkingThe high cost of law enforcement and the difficulty in

stopping and arresting drunk drivers before they do dam-age prompt some to look at the original source of the drunkdriving problem: alcohol. There is no question that for theluxury of drinking alcoholic beverages society pays a steepprice that goes far beyond drunk driving. The Centers forDisease Control and Prevention estimate that every year inthe United States nearly 100,000 people die from alcohol-related causes. While there is virtually no national supportto ban alcoholic beverages, efforts have been made to re-duce the amount of alcohol consumed.

One proposal is to raise taxes on alcohol. A severe pricehike for alcoholic beverages would discourage people

Studies show thatpeople who begindrinking early in lifeare four times morelikely to becomealcoholics than thosewho start later.



67

from buying them as frequently. Furthermore, it wouldforce the price of the product to more closely cover theenormous costs of alcohol abuse to society. Those opposedto a high tax argue that the costs to society are almost com-pletely the result of those who misuse alcohol and that re-sponsible drinkers should not be forced to pay them.

Preventing teen drinkingAccording to Jim Mosher of the Marin Institute, an an-

tidrug organization, “The earlier you begin drinking, themore likely you are to have alcohol problems and drunkdriving problems.” 29 Research shows that a person who be-gins drinking before the age of fifteen is four times aslikely to develop an addiction to alcohol as someone whobegins drinking at twenty-one.

This suggests that one of the most effective ways to re-duce drunk driving is to reduce the amount of drinkingamong young people. History has shown this to be correct.Raising the age at which young people can legally drinkhas been a key factor in reducing teen drunk driving in re-cent years. The number of alcohol-related traffic fatalitiesinvolving teens has dropped significantly since the legaldrinking age in all states was raised to twenty-one.

Enforcement of the minimum drinking age law, how-ever, has been lax in many communities. One experimentin Washington, D.C., found that underage drinkers wereable to purchase beer in 97 percent of their attempts. Thosewho sell alcoholic beverages, whether in liquor stores orbars, are often untrained or lack the motivation to enforcelaws against selling or serving alcohol to teens. Many ad-vocate tighter regulations and enforcement to crack downon alcohol sales to underage drinkers. This includes mak-ing those who sell to minors liable for the damage causedby those minors.

Those who have studied the problems of teen drinkers,though, have found that parents are often the most impor-tant safeguard against teen drinking. The children of par-ents who drink are far more likely to drink than thosewhose parents do not. A survey of eighth graders in urban


68

areas in Southern California found that children who wereat home unsupervised were twice as likely to drink alcoholas those in homes where an adult was present.

Another proposal to reduce teen drinking is to limit ad-vertising for alcoholic beverages, especially advertise-ments that appeal to teens. Presently, there are no laws thatspecifically ban or regulate ads for alcoholic beverages.The trend, in fact, is in the opposite direction. For the pastforty years, the liquor industry has voluntarily stayed awayfrom advertising on television. However, it has recentlylifted that self-imposed ban, citing the disadvantage thispolicy has put it in compared with beer companies that reg-ularly advertise on TV.

Reduce drivingAnother way of getting at the problem of drunk driving

is to reduce the need for people to drive. Laurence Ross in-sists, “As a society, we will have to depend somewhat lesson the private automobile and indulge somewhat less inour drug of choice, alcohol.” 30 Greater use of mass transitsuch as buses and trains would eliminate the necessity ofmany people’s having to drive after they have been drink-ing. The government could discourage the use of automo-biles by imposing a high tax on gasoline. This would beespecially effective in reducing the amount of miles peopledrive for recreation, which is associated with a large per-centage of drinking and driving.

Americans, however, have been extremely reluctant toreduce their driving. Social institutions have made the in-dependent operation of a motor vehicle crucial to gettingaround in society. And Americans show no inclination toleave their spread-out quarters of the suburbs for the morecompact quarters of the inner city. In fact, many communi-ties have cut funds for mass transit. Whereas in most of theworld, and even in past American generations, people walkto many destinations, most Americans today drive even ifthey have to travel only a few blocks. This is especiallytrue of teenagers, to whom driving an automobile is asource of pride and status.


69

Eliminating driver’s educationSchool driver’s education programs have been in opera-

tion for decades in many states. Their purpose is to providesafety instruction for young people so that they will be-come better, safer drivers. But, according to the AmericanAutomobile Association, driver’s education courses havebeen cut at nearly half the schools in the nation. Those thatcontinue to offer such programs often hold them afterschool, and programs that used to be offered free nowcharge a substantial fee. At a time when many school dis-tricts face budget shortages and are looking for ways to cutcosts, this trend is likely to continue.

One of the most surprising suggestions of experts is thatthe elimination of driver’s education programs in school isa good thing. In the words of one writer, “No study hasever proven that drivers education . . . makes teenagersdrive any safer.” 31 In fact, the main result of providingreadily available and inexpensive driver’s training pro-grams in the schools has been to encourage teens to gettheir licenses at an earlier age than many did in the past.Younger drivers means more accidents.

By making driver’s education programs more expensiveand less convenient, schools have postponed driving formany young people, with positive safety results. Connecti-cut, for example, has noted a decline in vehicle crashes inmany of its school districts that have eliminated driver’seducation.

Reducing the opportunity to drink and driveIf people continue to drink and drive despite the risks and

the consequences, an effective effort to reduce drunk drivingmust find ways to limit their opportunities to do so. Technol-ogy could help in this regard. There are now ignition locksavailable that prevent vehicles from starting until the driverhas passed a breathalyzer test. As a condition of probation,some communities are beginning to install such locks on thecars of those convicted of driving while intoxicated.

Some of the most dangerous drinking and driving situa-tions occur in places where drinking is the primary activity


70

and yet the only way to reach the location is by driving sev-eral miles in a private vehicle. This is particularly true ofbars and taverns located on the outskirts of town or in thecountryside along a highway. Communities could establishzoning laws that require such businesses to locate closer tothe population or in places served by mass transit. The argu-ment against this is, again, that the irresponsible behavior of

a few drinkers should not be allowed to limitthe freedom of law-abiding citizens.

Raising the driving ageThe most obvious way to keep young dri-

vers away from situations that might causethem to exercise bad judgment such asdrinking and driving is to raise the licensingage. New Jersey found that upping its licens-ing age to seventeen produced a significantdrop in fatal motor vehicle accidents. Youngpeople in Victoria, Australia, must be at leasteighteen to get their license. Since startingthis policy, Victoria has boasted the lowestrate of traffic fatalities per licensed driver ofall Australian states.

More common than a simple raising of thelicensing age is the graduated driver’s li-cense. Slightly more than half the statespresently have some form of graduated li-censing, and more states are consideringjoining them. The NHTSA backs the con-cept, which assumes that a license is a privi-lege to be earned over time rather than all at

once. According to Ann Drumm of the American Automo-bile Association’s Southern California branch, “The wholeidea is to postpone the exposure of new drivers to moredangerous driving conditions and give them time to gainreal-life experience.” 32 Typical of the program are Michi-gan’s graduated licensing laws, which require students topass several levels of experience before receiving a perma-nent, unrestricted license at seventeen.

Bars in remotelocations that can onlybe reached by car addto the problem ofdrinking and driving.


71

Curfews and other restrictionsCurfews are one of the restrictions that graduated licens-

ing programs often place on young people because night isthe most dangerous time for young people to be on theroad. Night driving requires more skill and experienceeven for sober drivers. Yet nighttime is when most drinkingtakes place. Less than 20 percent of the total number ofmiles that sixteen-year-olds drive are covered between thehours of 9 P.M. and 6 A.M., but over 40 percent of their fa-talities occur during those same hours.

Because of this, some states have begun to restrict night-time driving of very young drivers. In New York, for exam-ple, a sixteen-year-old’s driver’s license is valid onlybetween the hours of 5 A.M. and 9 P.M. This restriction is re-moved at age seventeen only if the driver has not been citedfor any traffic violations or been involved in any accidents.

Other graduated license policies require an adult to bepresent or prohibit young drivers from carrying passengersin the first few months of their driving. A proposal underconsideration by the Wisconsin legislature calls for youngdrivers to log fifty hours of driving time accompanied byan adult before getting a permanent license. Among otherbenefits, this protects young drivers from the influence offriends who might urge them to drive after drinking. Peo-ple under the age of eighteen are also banned from drivingin New York City, where the busy traffic makes driving es-pecially hazardous.

All the policies aimed at taking young drivers off theroad spark protests from teens angered at having their free-dom restricted. They are especially irked at the inconve-niences such as being unable to go on a date or drive towork in their car. Some of them believe that the restrictionswill cause more harm than good. “If you have to be in by12, you might be speeding to get home on time,” 33 saysMatt Schoh, a student in Elk Mound, Wisconsin.

Such protests are likely to fall on deaf ears. Restrictionson young drivers’ licenses are likely to gain more accep-tance than other attempts to crack down on drunk drivingbecause sixteen-year-olds do not vote and so have no


72

political power. But if adults expect teens to alter theirlifestyle without making any effort to alter their own drink-ing and driving habits, they will only provide more incen-tive for teens to defy authority.

Changing attitudesAttempts to regulate drinking and driving and the situa-

tions that lead to them face tough sledding unless the pub-lic overwhelmingly supports them. As Susan Herbelobserves, “Until drunk driving gets to be a behavior that isjust not socially acceptable, we’re not going to stop it.” 34

North Carolina was able to install the most effectiveanti–drunk driving program in the nation because thestate’s citizens made it a high priority. Governor JamesHunt, who was himself involved in a head-on collisionwith a drunk driver many years ago, featured the reductionof drunk driving as one of his major election issues.

Awareness of the problem of drinking and driving hasreceived a boost in recent years from the entertainment andsports industries—both of which have considerable influ-ence with teens. Popular television programs such as Bev-erly Hills, 90210 and The Cosby Show have dealt with theissue of drunk driving. In 1999, the National CollegiateAthletic Association ran a blizzard of anti–drinking anddriving TV ads during the national basketball champi-onships. Such measures help to combat the idea that drink-ing and driving is acceptable behavior.

The Corrective Behavior Institute has taken more ag-gressive action in changing the attitude of teens whodrink and drive. It has set up a program in San Diego inwhich juveniles convicted of driving under the influencemust visit coroners’ offices and emergency hospital unitsto get a close-up view of the horrifying consequences ofdriving drunk.

The key to awarenessKevin Brockway had owned a driver’s license for just

five days when he drove off to a New Year’s Eve party cel-ebrating the arrival of 1998. Although his father, Tom, was


73

aware than Kevin had been sneaking alcohol at times dur-ing the year, he thought they had worked through thatproblem. “I thought I had a good handle of what Kevin wasup to,” said Tom. “But he became someone I didn’t knowduring a two-hour period one night.” 35

That night, Kevin drank heavily at the party. He tried todrive himself and a passenger home. Just three blocksfrom his house in St. Paul, Minnesota, he lost control ofhis 1988 Celebrity, slammed into a tree, and was killed.

Through their grief and numbness, the Brockways triedto find a way to make something good come out of Kevin’sdeath. His nineteen-year-old sister, Kristen, designed a keyring in the maroon and gold colors of Harding HighSchool, where Kevin was a student. Inscribed on the ringwere the words, “In memory of Kevin Brockway. Think ofme—before you turn the key.” 36

The Brockways intended for the key rings to be a re-minder only to Kevin’s classmates at Harding. But after alocal television station reported the effort, the Brockways

Accidents such as thisone will continue tohappen as long asdrinking and driving isnot considered to besocially unacceptablebehavior.



74

received requests for rings from around thestate. Within the year, they sent out morethan thirty-five thousand, each with a copyof the story of Kevin’s tragedy, written byhis father. Experts who warn against the dan-gers of drunk driving say that the messageneeds to be repeated time after time in orderto be effective. The Brockways hope that, forthose who own a key ring, it will serve as avivid reminder of the consequences of drunkdriving every time they start the car.

Responsible drinkingThe alcoholic beverage industry has also

made public relations efforts to curb drink-ing and driving, especially among teens.“Know your limits” and “know when to saywhen” are some of the more popular slogansthey have promoted. Critics of the industry,however, wonder if these slogans do more

harm than good. Both of them suggest that drinking alco-hol is normal and even desirable. They leave the false im-pression that alcohol has no effect on normal activity,including driving, as long as drinkers do not go overboard.

Many bars sponsor designated driver programs, an ideathat originated in Norway. The idea is for groups ofdrinkers to designate one of their members to avoid drink-ing for the evening. This person will be responsible fortransporting other members home. Bars encourage thissafety measure by providing free nonalcoholic beveragesfor the designated driver. Other bars look after the safety oftheir patrons by offering safe rides home.

Unfortunately, few drinkers in the United States take ad-vantage of these types of programs. Participation in a saferide program is too often avoided as a sign of weakness—apublic admission that the drinker cannot handle his or herliquor or does not know when to say when. Many feel thatdesignated driver programs impose a burden on the desig-nated driver, who cannot join in the social activity of drink-

Three-year-old GeorgeHarmon helped inMADD’s New Hamp-shire campaign againstdrunk driving. He wasburned and his motherdied when their car washit by a drunk driver.



75

ing with the rest of the group and must drive around to var-ious houses at the end of the evening. There is also concernthat these programs encourage heavy drinking among thenondrivers, which can lead to other dangerous conse-quences.

Friends and familyAnother popular slogan of those working to reduce

drunk driving is “friends don’t let friends drive drunk.”This approach has the advantage of bringing into playthose who have not been drinking and whose consciencesand judgment are bound to be functioning better than thoseof drinkers.

Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) tries toform a bond between parents and children that will preventdrinking and driving. The organization was founded in1981 by Robert Anastas, a Massachusetts high schoolteacher. SADD has drawn up a contract to be signed by

This young woman hastaken her friends’ carkeys to prevent themfrom driving drunk.


76

young people and their parents. The teen agrees to call theparents for a ride home if the teen or the person he or shedepends on for a ride has been drinking. The parents agreeto give them a ride, regardless of the time or place, and topostpone discussion of the incident to a later date.

Protecting those who do drink and driveGiven human nature and the modern lifestyle, there is

no way to completely eliminate drunk driving. That beingthe case, some people argue that more effort should bemade to protect those who do drink and drive from tragedy.The greatest dangers to drunk drivers are obstacles near theroad. The removal of trees, telephone poles, and curbsfrom roadways reduces the chances of drunk driverskilling themselves or their passengers. Providing reflectorson curves and leveling out shoulders to remove steep em-bankments and ditches would accomplish the same thing.

Highway safety experts have been working for years tomake roads and vehicles safer even for bad drivers. Theirefforts, which have included antilock brake systems, seatbelts, and air bags, have paid off. There has been a 90 per-cent reduction in the rate of highway deaths since the1920s. The crash rate on the interstate highway system ishalf that of the highways it replaced despite the greaterspeed of traffic. Three decades ago, the U.S. death rateamong motorists was 5.5 per 100 million miles driven. Inrecent years, the figure has held steady at 1.7, even thoughthe roads are far more crowded than they were even adecade ago.

But experts warn that most of the safety steps that can betaken have already been put in place. Dr. Ricardo Martinezof the NHTSA puts the matter simply when he says, “Whatit comes down to now is driver behavior.” 37

Who is responsible?In recent years, efforts have been made to curb drunk

driving by spreading the responsibility. There have beenproposals to require any business that serves alcohol to re-main open an hour beyond the last serving of alcohol and


77

to provide food to help customers sober up. Some haveproposed making party hosts legally liable if one of theirguests has an accident driving home drunk. Bills have beenintroduced in legislatures holding employers responsiblefor employees who drive home drunk from office parties.

Others believe that the responsibility for drinking anddriving lies solely with the individual. Brian O’Neill, pres-ident of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, argues,“No one has any idea how to make drivers safe. It’s not aquestion of skills, but of attitudes—what they choose to dobehind the wheel.” 38

Choice is the key word. Individuals can choose not todrink or can refuse to put themselves in a position wherethey may have to drive if they drink. Regardless of the atti-tudes of society toward drinking and driving, there is oneperson who can stop someone from getting behind thewheel drunk: That is the driver.



Introduction

1. Quoted in Tim J. Sheehan, “McEwen Gets Six Months inJail,” (Eau Claire) Leader-Telegram, May 25, 1996, p. B-1.

2. Quoted in Sheehan, “McEwen Gets Six Months in Jail,”p. B-2.

3. Quoted in Julian Emerson, “Students See How Alcohol,Cars Don’t Mix,” (Eau Claire) Leader-Telegram, April 20,1996, p. B-1.

4. Quoted in Tim Sheehan, “DW Why? Son’s DeathHaunts, Motivates Father,” (Eau Claire) Leader-Telegram,March 16, 1997, p. F-1.

Chapter 1: Unguided Missiles on the Road

5. Quoted in Matthew Wald, “Tough Action on Drunk Dri-ving Pays Off,” New York Times, November 26, 1997, p. A-1.

6. Quoted in Lesley Hazelton, “Fear Is Increasing on theRoads, but That May Not Be a Bad Thing,” New York Times,October 16, 1997, p. G-2.

7. Quoted in Joey Kennedy, “Drunk Driving Makes aComeback,” Redbook, May 1997, p. 90.

8. Quoted in James B. Jacobs, Drunk Driving: An Ameri-can Dilemma. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989, p.xiv.

9. U.S. Department of Transportation, “Youth Fatal Crashand Alcohol Facts,” 1994.10. Quoted in Kennedy, “Drunk Driving Makes a Come-

back,” p. 89.11. Quoted in Roberto Suro, “Dip in Youth Drug Use

Hailed by Officials as Sign of Hope,” Washington Post, Au-gust 7, 1997, p. A-4.

Notes

79


Chapter 2: How Drinking Affects Driving Ability

12. Vivian Begali, Head Injury in Children and Adoles-cents. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology, 1992, p. 42.13. Jacobs, Drunk Driving, p. 78.14. H. Laurence Ross, Confronting Drunk Driving: Social

Policy for Saving Lives. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress, 1992, p. 3.15. Quoted in Ross, Confronting Drunk Driving, p. 20.

Chapter 3: Who Drinks and Drives and Why

16. Quoted in Kennedy, “Drunk Driving Makes a Come-back,” p. 90.17. Quoted in David Leonhardt, “A Little Booze for the

Kiddies,” Business Week, September 23, 1996, p. 158.18. David Leonhardt, “How Big Liquor Takes Aim at

Teens,” Business Week, May 19, 1997, p. 92.19. Jacobs, Drunk Driving, p. 48.

Chapter 4: The Law and Drunk Driving

20. Quoted in Ross, Confronting Drunk Driving, p. 22.21. Quoted in Kevin Sack, “Jury Holds a Drunk Driver’s

Life in the Balance,” New York Times, May 6, 1997, p. B-9.22. Quoted in Kevin Sack, “Jury Spares Drunk Driver from

Death Penalty in Killing,” New York Times, May 7, 1997, p.A-1.23. Quoted in Gregory Beals, “Rudy Takes the Keys,”

Newsweek, March 8, 1999, p. 27.24. Quoted in Beals, “Rudy Takes the Keys,” p. 28.25. Ross, Confronting Drunk Driving, p. 58.

Chapter 5: Preventing Drunk Driving Tragedies

26. Wald, “Tough Action on Drunk Driving Pays Off,”p. A-1.27. Quoted in Wald, “Tough Action on Drunk Driving Pays

Off,” p. A-1.28. Quoted in Wald, “Tough Action on Drunk Driving Pays

Off,” p. A-24.

80


29. Quoted in Leonhardt, “A Little Booze for the Kiddies,”p. 158.30. Ross, Confronting Drunk Driving, p. 193.31. Quoted in Jacques Steinberg, “Not the Driver’s Ed

Class Your Parents Remember,” New York Times, October 16,1997, p. G-2.32. Quoted in Maria Casey, “Drunken Driving Pondered,”

New York Times, February 16, 1997, p. CN-4.33. Quoted in Susan Barber, “License to Learn?” (Eau

Claire) Leader-Telegram, March 11, 1999, p. C-1.34. Quoted in Kennedy, “Drunk Driving Makes a Come-

back,” p. 90.35. Quoted in Suzanne P. Campbell, “Think of Me,”

Lutheran, March 1999, p. 19.36. Quoted in Campbell, “Think of Me,” p. 19.37. Quoted in Hazelton, “Fear Is Increasing,” p. G-2.38. Quoted in Steinberg, “Not the Driver’s Ed Class Your

Parents Remember,” p. G-2.

81



American Automobile AssociationTraffic Safety and Engineering Department1000 AAA Dr.Heathrow, FL 32746-5863(407) 253-9100www.aaa.com

The nation’s largest service organization for drivers has aFoundation for Traffic Safety, which includes information ondriver safety aimed at teen drivers.

Anheuser-Busch, Inc.Consumer Awareness and EducationOne Busch Pl.St. Louis, MO 63118(314) 577-2000

The nation’s largest beer manufacturer has a public relationsdepartment that deals with drinking and societal issues.Among its services are speakers, programs, information, andlinks to other responsible drinking sources.

MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving)511 East John Carpenter FreewayIrving, TX 75062(800) GET-MADDwww.madd.org

This is an intense, anti–drunk driving organization that advo-cates for victims of drunk drivers. It provides current news onthe subject as well as programs and policy recommendationsaimed at enforcing criminal sanctions against drunk drivers

Organizations to Contact

83


and protecting the rights of both victims and potential victimsof drunk drivers.

Miller Brewing Co.3939 West Highland Blvd.P.O. Box 482Milwaukee, WI 53201-0482(414) 931-2000

Anheuser-Busch’s major U.S. competitor in the beer markethas a similar public relations program to promote responsibledrinking and curtail drunk driving.

National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug InformationP.O. Box 2345Rockville, MD 20847-2345(800) 729-6686www.health.org

This is the world’s largest resource for current informationand materials on alcohol and alcohol abuse. Its informationspecialists can guide information seekers through the vastcollection of free and low-cost materials to help them findwhat they are looking for.

National Commission Against Drunk Driving1900 L St. NW, Suite 705Washington, DC 20036(202) 452-6004www.ncadd.com

This is a nonprofit organization working to make drunk dri-ving socially unacceptable. Resources include facts, tips onwhat individuals can do to combat drunk driving, and infor-mation on designated driver programs.

National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationRoom 5118, NTS-13400 Seventh St. SWWashington, DC 20590(202) 366-9550www.nhtsa.gov

84


This government organization is the best source for currentinformation, statistics, surveys, and trends in traffic safety,with extensive emphasis on the effects and frequency ofdrinking and driving.

RID (Remove Intoxicated Drivers)P.O. Box 520Schenectady, NY 12301(518) 372-0034www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/riduse

This is the oldest of the anti–drunk driving organizations. Be-cause it spends so little on administration, it is less efficient atproviding access to its resources. But it provides valuablematerials, public awareness programs, and interactive mediaon the subject.

SADD (Students Against Destructive Decisions)P.O. Box 800Marlborough, MA 01752(502) 481-3568www.saddonline.com

This organization is specifically aimed at teens. It not onlyhas reference materials and relevant information, but alsoprovides a network for contacting other teens with the sameconcerns, help in starting new SADD chapters, and support inkeeping them going.

85



Suzanne P. Campbell, “Think of Me,” Lutheran, March1999. Moving account of one family’s tragic experiencewith teenage drinking and driving and how they strove tomake something positive come of it.

Jean McBee Knox, Drinking, Driving, and Drugs. NewYork: Chelsea House, 1988. This book is geared toteenagers. It examines the effects of alcohol and other drugson driving and provides some information on alcoholism.Also included is a series of sobering advertisements aboutdrunk driving.

Judy Monroe, Alcohol. Springfield, NJ: Enslow, 1994. Easy-to-read book that details the history of alcohol use and itseffects on the body and the mind, with plenty of statisticsand personal anecdotes.

Richard Steins, Alcohol Abuse: Is This Danger on the Rise?Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 1995. Foryounger readers, an introduction to current trends in alcoholabuse, with full-color photos.

L. B. Taylor, Driving High: The Hazards of Driving,Drinking, and Drugs. New York: Franklin Watts, 1983. Thisbook, written for young adult readers, is heavy on examplesand anecdotes concerning teens who have driven drunk.Some of the information and statistics are dated.

Suggestions for Further Reading

87



BooksVivian Begali, Head Injury in Children and Adolescents.Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology, 1992. This is a detailedtreatment of the subject of brain injuries. It includes a greatdeal of information on how the brain works and how itresponds to various outside influences.

Lawrence A. Greenfield, Alcohol and Crime. Washington,DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998.

James B. Jacobs, Drunk Driving: An American Dilemma.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. For moreadvanced readers, an in-depth look at the social influencesand legal implications of drinking and driving.

H. Laurence Ross, Confronting Drunk Driving: SocialPolicy for Saving Lives. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress, 1992. Also for advanced readers, a thorough treat-ment of the myths and realities surrounding the issue ofdrinking and driving.

PeriodicalsSusan Barber, “License to Learn?” (Eau Claire) Leader-Telegram, March 11, 1999.

Gregory Beals, “Rudy Takes the Keys,” Newsweek, March 8,1999.

Maria Casey, “Drunken Driving Pondered,” New York Times,February 16, 1997.

Jen M. R. Doman, “For the Life of Your Daughter,” Life,April 1997.

Julian Emerson, “Students See How Alcohol, Cars Don’tMix,” (Eau Claire) Leader-Telegram, April 20, 1996.

Works Consulted

89


Lesley Hazelton, “Fear Is Increasing on the Roads, but ThatMay Not Be a Bad Thing,” New York Times, October 16,1997.

Joey Kennedy, “Drunk Driving Makes a Comeback,”Redbook, May 1997.

David Leonhardt, “A Little Booze for the Kiddies,” BusinessWeek, September 23, 1996.

———, “How Big Liquor Takes Aim at Teens,” BusinessWeek, May 19, 1997.

Kevin Sack, “Jury Holds a Drunk Driver’s Life in theBalance,” New York Times, May 6, 1997.

———, “Jury Spares Drunk Driver from Death Penalty inKilling,” New York Times, May 7, 1997.

Tim J. Sheehan, “McEwen Gets Six Months in Jail,” (EauClaire) Leader-Telegram, May 25, 1996.

Tim Sheehan, “DW Why? Son’s Death Haunts, MotivatesFather,” (Eau Claire) Leader-Telegram, March 16, 1997.

Jacques Steinberg, “Not the Driver’s Ed Class Your ParentsRemember,” New York Times, October 16, 1997.

Roberto Suro, “Dip in Youth Drug Use Hailed by Officialsas Sign of Hope,” Washington Post, August 7, 1997.

U.S. Department of Justice, “Drunk Driving,” 1992.

U.S. Department of Transportation, “Youth Fatal Crash andAlcohol Facts,” 1994.

Matthew Wald, “Tough Action on Drunk Driving Pays Off,”New York Times, November 26, 1997.

90


Index

91


92


93


94


Cover photo: © Roy Morsch/The Stock MarketAssociated Press, 7Associated Press/Anheuser-Busch, 44Associated Press/FPG International, 39© Robert Bennett/FPG International, 57© Walter Bibikow/FPG International, 54© Ron Chapple/FPG International, 52Corbis/Catherine Karnow, 15Corbis/David H. Wells, 61Corbis-Bettmann, 11, 13© Richard Gaul/FPG International, 29© Peter Gridley/FPG International, 31© Eric O’Connell/FPG International, 75PhotoDisc, 24, 27, 47, 50, 66, 73© Stephanie Rausser/FPG International, 41Reuters/Gary Cameron/Archive Photos, 20Reuters/Jeff Christensen/Archive Photos, 59© Ken Ross/FPG International, 64© Chip Simons/FPG International, 70

Picture Credits

95


Nathan Aaseng has written more than one hundred booksfor young readers on a wide variety of subjects; more thantwo dozen of them have won awards. He lives in Eau Claire,Wisconsin, where he and his wife have piloted two childreninto the perilous world of teen driving, with two more waitingeagerly in the wings.

About the Author

96


Documents

Teens and Drunk Driving · Teens and Drunk Driving Teen Sexuality Teen Smoking Teen Suicide Teen Violence Look for these and other books in the Lucent ... ‘I love you, Saulo